UHD/4K Blu-ray Format will not support 3D! - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-14-2015, 06:03 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Exclamation UHD/4K Blu-ray Format will not support 3D!

According to the leaked specifications from Panasonic, the upcoming Ultra HD Blu-ray format is going to be a side-grade instead of an up-grade, because apparently 3D is not included anywhere in the specs!

Quote:
SD resolution and 3D (MVC) video are not included.


What the hell are they thinking? I don't want to have to choose between watching a movie at a higher resolution or watching a movie in 3D. This means we will have to choose between watching a movie at 1080p resolution in 3D via the Blu-ray 3D format, or watching that movie at 4K resolution in 2D on the upcoming UHD Blu-ray format. This is ridiculous and unacceptable! HDMI 2.0 has enough bandwidth to support frame-packed 3D at 4K resolution at up to 30 Hz, so I don't understand why they are doing this to us

If they can have 4K in 2D @ 60 Hz as part of the mandatory specifications then they should have 4K in 3D @ 24/25/30 Hz as part of them too
wigglywaffles is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-14-2015, 06:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 59
They never mentioned it before they were going to support 4k3D yet. This is still years away, if ever. You can render a SbS 2D 3D disc, if you want. The reason I say never is because 3D is considered niche in the HT world. They released it on regular BD with the intention that it was going to explode in the market along with broadcast 3D, which it didn't. We can see the sales results for 3D BD which are between 5-15 % of BD sales. I wouldn't look for them to rush into it. There aren't even displays yet that do 4k3D, it's really nothing to worry about right now. I would be more concerned if Cameron decides not to shoot in 3D for Avatar.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
Old 01-14-2015, 07:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
film113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
T We can see the sales results for 3D BD which are between 5-15 % of BD sales. I wouldn't look for them to rush into it. There aren't even displays yet that do 4k3D, it's really nothing to worry about right now. I would be more concerned if Cameron decides not to shoot in 3D for Avatar.
Um...actually sales are between 5 - 31 % of the combined sales of BD and DVD. Not mainstream but certainly a nice chunk of change.

As for 4K 3D, I don't expect that...but I DO expect such a player to have 3D capability, even if it isn't 4K. If it's not included in any capacity at all, I'd pass.
film113 is offline  
Old 01-14-2015, 08:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Only a couple movies actually managed 30 percent 3D sales. I wouldn't say that it's 30 percent across the board for all movies. The average 3D sales are below 15 percent. It really makes no sense to add support for it yet, they can add it later when the displays are capable of full 3840x2160p per eye. For now, for UHD SbS 3D you'll get 1920x1080px2 (half width).

According to these specs under HEVC you can render to 1080p60 now, so that might interest some.

This line intentionally left blank.

Last edited by tomtastic; 01-14-2015 at 09:03 PM.
tomtastic is offline  
Old 01-14-2015, 09:14 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
They never mentioned it before they were going to support 4k3D yet. This is still years away, if ever. You can render a SbS 2D 3D disc, if you want. The reason I say never is because 3D is considered niche in the HT world. They released it on regular BD with the intention that it was going to explode in the market along with broadcast 3D, which it didn't. We can see the sales results for 3D BD which are between 5-15 % of BD sales. I wouldn't look for them to rush into it. There aren't even displays yet that do 4k3D, it's really nothing to worry about right now. I would be more concerned if Cameron decides not to shoot in 3D for Avatar.
This isn't true. Samsung's TVs do 4K 3D.

I play PC games on my Samsung HU9000 Series TV all the time at 4K resolution.

Here is a video I made of Watch Dogs running at 4K/60 3D side-by-side mode on PC:

If it supports 4K SBS @ 60 Hz it could probably do 4K framepacked @ 30 Hz though I don't have a source to drive 4K framepacked 3D @ 30 Hz yet to test it.

As far as I know Samsung is the only manufacturer who is currently getting 3D right in their 4K TVs; Panasonic is the other doing active 3D on their sets but for some stupid reason they don't allow you to apply 3D modes to resolutions higher than 1080p so that's why I've skipped their sets even though I was interested in them for their DisplayPort, their crippled 3D functionality was a deal breaker.

You know what's niche in the HT world? 4K freakin' Blu-ray.

This is ridiculous to include things as niche as 10 bit, Rec. 2020, but not 3D, especially when frame-packed 4K 3D @ 30 Hz easily fits within the HDMI 2.0 bandwidth limitations and should require no more power to be put into a player than what is already necessary to do the 4K 2D @ 60 Hz that is being mandated in the specs. It is pure stupidity not to include it in the specs.

I thought it was a given that UHD Blu-ray would support 3D by default. Since when have you heard of a new home video format taking away key features that its predecessors had and downgrading the visual quality in some manner? Stripping out such a key feature as this from a successor format is unheard of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Only a couple movies actually managed 30 percent 3D sales. I wouldn't say that it's 30 percent across the board for all movies. The average 3D sales are below 15 percent. It really makes no sense to add support for it yet, they can add it later when the displays are capable of full 3840x2160p per eye. For now, for UHD SbS 3D you'll get 1920x1080px2 (half width).

According to these specs under HEVC you can render to 1080p60 now, so that might interest some.
Like I said it costs nothing to include this support because 4K 3D @ 30 Hz requires the same amount of computation power as 2D 4K @ 60 Hz which is in the mandatory specs. Making 4K 3D up to 30 Hz a mandatory part of the specifications would not make players any more expensive to manufacture.

It makes no sense not to have it included day one so they don't have to do yet another revision to the format. The addition of 3D to the Blu-ray format was a sloppy transition; it's really stupid that they might repeat that transition when this time around it's not necessary - the technology is available to include on day one of the format.

Your logic of not including it in the format day one just because not all 4K TVs are capable of it yet is stupid too. There is no 4K TV capable of Rec. 2020 yet and very few 10 bit panels out there but they're including 10 bit and Rec. 2020 on day one in anticipation of future 4K TVs being able to use this. They should be including 3D in the specs on day one too.
wigglywaffles is offline  
Old 01-14-2015, 09:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Are you sending 2160p per eye? Unless I'm mistaken, I think you're getting 4k half width 3D mixed up with what Ultra MVC should offer, which is 3840x2160p per eye. Current gen 4k displays will only support 1920x1080 per eye which equal a 2160p image, yes it's 4k, but it's not the BD equivalent that existed with HD 3D. If you create content that was 3840x2160 per camera, render that to 4k SbS 3D, you loose half the lines width half the lines vertical per eye.

With HD, it's 960x540p per eye which equals a 1920x1080p image, many argue that this isn't full HD 3D because you need 1080p per eye. I don't quite agree with that, as I still see a 1080p image, but that's the way it was with HD BD 3D. Ultra HD 3D would need to follow the same setup.

The other specs they're including are future proofing, eventually they'll all be up to Ultra HD spec, not every display will have 3D and as it turns out from CES 2015, fewer than we expected. Many don't want or care about 3D. That's just the way it is.

The other thing that concerns me is whether studios will want to render out their movies to full 2160p per eye, especially considering 3D is such a niche market in the home theater and there has been a decline in the theaters too, if you want to believe that or not. There will be considerably more cost in this, just as it is for HD 3D now. In time it will be cheaper, which is why I think 2018 at best, maybe in time for Avatar 2.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
Old 01-15-2015, 08:56 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 32
I am getting 1920x2160 per eye (half-4K, but twice 1080p resolution -- ~4 million pixels)

And yes, it looks amazing. It's 4X the resolution you can get on a 1080p 3DTV when you use 1080p SBS video, and twice the resolution you can get on a 1080p 3DTV when you use MVC 3D. And of course, it is a full 60 Hz to boot, unlike the maximum 24 Hz you get on a 1080p 3DTV when using frame-packed/MVC 3D.

So I am not getting anything mixed up. I am fully aware that Ultra MVC will be a full 3840x2160 per eye, but HDMI 2.0 still has pitiful bandwidth so it is going to be a repeat of the HDMI 1.4 situation on 1080p 3DTVs; you can either get half-4K resolution at 60 Hz by using side-by-side video, or you can get the full 4K resolution at 30 Hz by using frame-packed video, just like on a 1080p 3DTV, thanks to the cancerous HDMI standard, it made 3D gaming on a 1080p 3DTV not a feasible experience because you could only get 3D at half-1080p resolution if you wanted an acceptable refresh rate. Samsung's 4K TVs with HDMI 2.0 and 3D capability at 4K resolution have lifted this restriction and finally made 3D gaming feasible on a TV, because 1920x2160 resolution @ 60 Hz is very acceptable for gaming.

Samsung's 4K displays are active 3D and they support 3D modes at 4K resolution (unlike Panasonic, which stupidly disables 3D from being used at 4K for some reason). So this means you can get 4K/3D SBS content @ 60 Hz right now from a PC on the display, because the TriDef software supports side-by-side mode, and perhaps 4K MVC @ 30 Hz in the future if NVIDIA ever updates their 3DTV Play software to take advantage of HDMI 2.0's new bandwidth. Currently there is not software available that can do frame-packed 3D at 4K resolution.

It is irrelevant what the costs to a studio are to render their movies in 4K/3D, and it is irrelevant whether or not every display has 3D; it costs them nothing to include support for the technology. Again, this is a stupid argument, as not every display will have 10 bit or Rec. 2020 and not everyone will be using an elaborate home theater setup with speakers that can support lossless audio or all sorts of other things that they are include in the format because they can. The format should have support for it, because the technology is there and costs nothing to include it in the specs, and so it will be there ready as an option for owners of 3D sets if a studio does decide to release a film at 4K/3D some day.
drummernrg and RLBURNSIDE like this.
wigglywaffles is offline  
Old 01-15-2015, 10:32 AM
Senior Member
 
Barry C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 49
I was eagerly anticipating the new BD standards in the hope that in addition to new 4K 3D capabilities, it would expand 1080 standards to include higher frame rates- 30p, 48p. 60p. etc. Full frame 1080 at 24p only is pretty limiting in that almost all 3D camcorders shoot at higher frame rates, some in addition to 24p, and many prosumer models won't do 24p. Right now, IMHO, the most 3D versatile system out there is the Gopro Dual system. Additionally, most NLEs also will edit and render HFR full frame SBS or TB and/or MVC. OH WELL


For quite sometime now, I've gotten used to the idea of 3D enthusiasts being treated like red headed step children, or Rodney Dangerfield- no respect. The consumer electronics manufactures badly botched the rollout of 3D in 2011 and as such, 3D bashing became the trendy thing to do. Sometimes this was justified, but often it was done by clueless tech blog writers and reviewers who had never seen really good 3D content on a GOOD (few and far between at the time) 3D display. Now, with few exceptions, they're trying to put this debacle behind them and are pretending that 3D never existed. They are being aided and abetted by still clueless people who still haven't seen real good 3D content on real good 3D displays which there are many more of now.


Again, just my opinion, 1080 3D is just fine. It looks just great on my 10' wide screen and I really am lukewarm, at best, on the whole 4K fad. The HDR aspect of it is starting to get interesting but the increased resolution is only mildly interesting to me, at best. One of the big bottlenecks for those of us that create our own content will remain the limitation of 1080 half frame sbs only for other than 24p content. I don't expect there to be much, if any, evolution in home theater 3D for a long, long, time and also no new 3D camcorders either. Damn shame, but that's just the way it is

My- mostly 3D- YouTube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Tarnway/videos?view=0

Barry C
Barry C is online now  
Old 01-15-2015, 10:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 314 Post(s)
Liked: 375
I am more concerned about the fact that there is only 4:2:0 subsampling.

Louder is NOT better!
JWhip is offline  
Old 01-15-2015, 10:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 59
I wasn't aware active screens allowed 2160p per eye, even at half resolution (half width). Is there any place you can point to these specs?

Cost is never irrelevant. 4k2D is going to cost more when it arrives, just as it Blu ray did vs. DVD. They would likely have to upgrade the MVC spec for 4k 3D, which I've heard nothing about. It's quite likely 1080p 3D will be it for awhile. The can always release it later, though if 3D sales in theaters start to decline, it may never happen.

I guess I'm just going to leave it at that, I don't agree. To me if there aren't any displays right now that can display full 2160p per eye, why would they release it in the 4k spec? When/if those displays arrive, they can upgrade it for 4k 3D, but it will likely require a new 3D player. The other specs they included make sense, there are already displays out there that are capable of utilizing the full potential. The difference between now and when 3D BD was released, they had full 1080p per eye tvs and passive screens then that could play back the native content. How are they even supposed to test 4k3D if it will work? I'm pretty sure with 4k2d they've done extensive testing on various displays with native 4k content. If 3D is niche right now, 4k3d would be a niche within a niche.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
Old 01-15-2015, 11:15 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry C View Post
I really am lukewarm, at best, on the whole 4K fad.
That's your problem right there. 4K is not a fad, it is the future. 3D is the fad, which is unfortunate, because we all love this fad and we don't want it to be a fad. We want it to survive.

3D is truly doomed if it doesn't get taken along for the ride with 4K. 4K is the format of the future and that is why it is vital that 3D gets attached to it.

UHD Blu-ray leaving out support for 3D is a death blow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
I wasn't aware active screens allowed 2160p per eye, even at half resolution (half width). Is there any place you can point to these specs?
Just look at my YouTube video. You can clearly see it is 2160p resolution in side-by-side mode. How would I have recorded that if my display didn't support it?

Go here, and select User manual on the left:
http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN65HU9000FXZA

It is on Page 221, "Supported Resolutions for 3D Modes"

The Samsung HU8550 and HU9000 series 4K TVs support 3D at 4K resolution in side-by-side mode (1920x2160 per eye), and their 2015 successors should too. Samsung is committed to active 3D technology. With a firmware update they should be able to support frame-packed 3D at 4k/30 Hz too, and with Samsung's One Connect boxes they have pledged to release for several more years they should be able to upgrade all their 2013 and newer model 4K TVs to support 3D functionality if it was included in UHD Blu-ray format's specifications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
To me if there aren't any displays right now that can display full 2160p per eye, why would they release it in the 4k spec? When/if those displays arrive, they can upgrade it for 4k 3D, but it will likely require a new 3D player. The other specs they included make sense, there are already displays out there that are capable of utilizing the full potential. The difference between now and when 3D BD was released, they had full 1080p per eye tvs and passive screens then that could play back the native content. How are they even supposed to test 4k3D if it will work? I'm pretty sure with 4k2d they've done extensive testing on various displays with native 4k content. If 3D is niche right now, 4k3d would be a niche within a niche.
There is not a single display out there that can achieve 10 bit and Rec. 2020 right now, and there's not even any planned for 2015, either. But they are including these features in the Blu-ray 4K specifications anyway. When you say that there are already displays out there that are capable of utilizing 4K Blu-ray's full potential, you are just wrong. So why are they including 10 bit / Rec. 2020 support? Because it is called future-proofing. An "if you build it, they will come" sort of thing.

If they don't build it, they will never come. The only reason 1080p 3D TVs were built was because of the Blu-ray 3D format. 4K 3D TVs that support MVC will never be built if it is not included in the Blu-ray 4K format.

It is pants-on-head retarded to have to potentially repeat the whole Blu-ray 3D format all over again and once again split the market and make it even more niche when this time the technology is available to implement on the 4K Blu-ray format from day one. 3D was not available to be implemented on Blu-ray back in 2006 when it launched so that is why a separate Blu-ray 3D format had to be created a few years later, splitting the market potential of 3D Blu-rays. The story is different this time around, 3D is well developed now and it can be included on Blu-ray's successor format on day one.

They are building this 4K Blu-ray format to be future-proofed with Rec. 2020 support from day one despite no display being able to support that on day one so that they don't have to release a revision in a couple more years that require all new players like they had to with Blu-ray 3D. They are doing this so they don't have to release a 'UHD Blu-ray Rec. 2020' format in the future when we finally do have Rec. 2020 displays. So it is disgusting that they are leaving out 3D from the specs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JWhip View Post
I am more concerned about the fact that there is only 4:2:0 subsampling.
Yeah well you can thank the HDMI Mafia for that one, their constant pushing of the garbage HDMI standard over DisplayPort has resulted in constant crippling of HDTVs and now 4K TVs for the last decade. 4:4:4 chroma is just another casualty of HDMI always being inferior to DisplayPort.

HDMI 2.0, while an improvement over HDMI 1.4, is still pathetic in comparison to the latest DisplayPort standard. Its inferior bandwidth means it cannot support 4K, 60 Hz, 4:4:4 chroma, and 10 bit all at the same time, whereas DisplayPort 1.3 easily could. The insistence on including HDCP 2.2 further hampers HDMI 2.0's bandwidth even though we all saw how well earlier versions of HDCP worked at stopping piracy of HD content, Hollywood is still dumb enough to think that if they keep repeating what failed to work in the past that 'maybe it'll actually work this time!'

So since we can't have it all at once thanks to the garbage HDMI 2.0 standard, the UHD Blu-ray specs have had to pick either 10 bit or 4:4:4, and they decided 10 bit was more important than 4:4:4.

Last edited by wigglywaffles; 01-15-2015 at 11:26 AM.
wigglywaffles is offline  
Old 01-15-2015, 11:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
NorthJersey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 2,740
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 21
LG already started showing 8K displays, which have the potential for 3D without any eyewear
so the question is with people just starting to get into 4K, with 8K promising an upgrade from 1080/720 close to the SD->HD upgrade, will 4k become the quick fad that disappeared in favor of 8K everything sooner than later? would 4K become the Vista or Windows 8 ?

I realize 8k price now will be expontial but not too long ago we were saying 4K was too pricy.
NorthJersey is offline  
Old 01-15-2015, 11:53 AM
Senior Member
 
Barry C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 272
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthJersey View Post
LG already started showing 8K displays, which have the potential for 3D without any eyewear
so the question is with people just starting to get into 4K, with 8K promising an upgrade from 1080/720 close to the SD->HD upgrade, will 4k become the quick fad that disappeared in favor of 8K everything sooner than later? would 4K become the Vista or Windows 8 ?

I realize 8k price now will be expontial but not too long ago we were saying 4K was too pricy.
Well said! In my earlier post, I was criticized for using the word "fad" regarding 4K. The dictionary defined fad as:
a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., especially one followed enthusiastically  by a group.

Yep, 8K is already in the works. As for 3D, and 4K, so far the group following for both is small. So, rather than lament about this, and realizing that nothing we say here matters in the grand sceme of things with regard to the future of 3D, I'm just damn happy that I have a good system to watch it on and the ability to create my own. I've been into 3D since 1970 with a 35mm Realist as have a few others on this forum. So, I'll just take it in stride and enjoy what's there since there's nothing else I can do. So, if that's "my problem," then I'm good with it!

My- mostly 3D- YouTube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Tarnway/videos?view=0

Barry C
Barry C is online now  
Old 01-15-2015, 12:47 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry C View Post
Well said! In my earlier post, I was criticized for using the word "fad" regarding 4K. The dictionary defined fad as:
a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., especially one followed enthusiastically by a group.
Everything is a fad if you use that definition.

Standard definition is a fad, HD is a fad, everything is a fad.

The human species is a fad, as we'll be extinct some day.

The universe is a fad as it will cease to exist eventually.

Everything is temporary. Nothing is permanent.

4K and 3D are finally hitting mainstream prices. 8K is a good 5-7 years away from being mainstream affordable. It is computationally and bandwidth-wise too expensive and will remain that way for at least five years. HDMI 2.0 won't support it so it will require a new input standard to drive. DisplayPort 1.3 could support 8K but only with 4:2:0. A new DisplayPort and a new HDMI will be necessary to push 8K content. Either way you're looking at a minimum of four years before you have a 8K display and a HDMI 3.0 to push content to said display.

It took three years for 4K to get where it is and it's still not perfected like 1080p was. 4K PC games require multiple GPUs in SLI for a cost >$1,000 to drive at acceptable framerates. GPU power won't advance fast enough for 8K to be driven acceptably for at least five years.
cinema mad and NSX1992 like this.
wigglywaffles is offline  
Old 01-15-2015, 03:01 PM
Advanced Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Why would Samsung be the only one "getting 3D right"? Other 4k displays including passive display the full 1080p frame per eye, which is what MVC 3D is. It certainly costs more to master something to MVC compared to 2D. Looking at Sony's professional tools, Do Studio is around 5k with an AVC encoder. If you want to do MVC the entire package is 20k. I do consider that price difference relevant.

I'm going to wait for the dust to settle on 4k, I don't have any reason to upgrade right now. I'm perfectly happy with my 1080p passive display. I've read so much nonsense with differing options and some not being up to spec. Reminds me of HD DVD's 1080i limit on first run players. The whole 8k thing, I see no place for that now save for computer displays for higher resolution. Are filmmakers even capturing at 8k right now? The highest I know of would be 5k digital and IMAX film. So the only benefit of 8k would be for upscaling or if there was 4k3d, 2160p per eye for passive displays. Not to mention broadcast and streaming which most subscribers will just take HD if it's cheaper given the choice. You're not going to convince many to pay more for something when they can get the cheaper version that looks fine. 4k is going to be a slow, uphill climb, limited to Ultra HD BD, Netflix for one or two shows, broadcast, even slower still. 4k will take off but even slower than HD did.

If 3D dies on Blu ray, it isn't because they left it off the spec right now on Ultra HD. It's because it failed to prove any significant market penetration since its release back in 2010.

From the release statement on MVC: December 17, 2009 “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.”

With a 15 percent average 3D BD sales (granted at least two films in 2014 managed 30percent), I wonder if they would consider Blu ray 3D a success?

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
Old 01-15-2015, 05:56 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Why would Samsung be the only one "getting 3D right"?
Well, first of all, passive 3D is garbage. So that tosses LG's TVs and a bunch of Sony TVs out the window.

Panasonic has an active 3D 4K TV, the X800U, but it does not support 3D at 4K resolutions. So that one goes straight to the garbage bin too.

Samsung is the only game in town for a proper 3D 4K display because Samsung is the only one who is manufacturing a 4K display that can handle 3D at resolutions higher than 1080p. So in other words, they're the only who are manufacturing an actual 4K 3D TV instead of just a glorified 1080p 3D TV like all the other 4K TV manufacturers.

Quote:
Other 4k displays including passive display the full 1080p frame per eye, which is what MVC 3D is.
I DON'T CARE ABOUT 1080P. I GOT A 4K TV TO WATCH 4K CONTENT, NOT 1080P CONTENT.

You passive 3D pushers need to get this through your heads. The purpose of upgrading to a 4K TV is to get an increased resolution, not to finally catch up to the resolution that every person with an active 3D 1080p TV has had for the last five years.

I shouldn't have to cut my 4K display's resolution back down 1080p whenever I want to watch something in 3D on it. There we go again with the side-grades, not the upgrades. I want a TV that is an upgrade in every way. I want every part of it to be better than my 1080p TV. I don't want to buy a new 4K TV to get the same experience I can get on my active 3D 1080p TV. That is stupid.

We didn't have to put up with 3D at any resolution less than 1080p on a 1080p TV, and we shouldn't have to put up with 3D at any resolution less than 4K on a 4K TV. A 4K TV that cannot do 3D properly is not an upgrade from a 1080p 3D TV.
wigglywaffles is offline  
Old 01-16-2015, 05:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 59
I'm sure there are many LG passive 4k owners here that would disagree, I've heard nothing but good reviews. Again, higher than 1080p 3D right now which isn't supported on BD and may not be for years to come, or ever, is a niche within a niche. Thinking that all displays should offer the same thing is just ludicrous and naive. Someone that sounds educated in these matters should clearly know better.

When/if there is native 4k content, I'm sure LG will offer something. So right now you can play a few games or watch a few videos on Youtube that are half width 4k. Oh boy, I'm sure everyone is going to be envious of you and your active 4k TV, oh wait, it's still not full 4k. Are you OK with that? Maybe you better complain to the manufacturers and return it for a better model.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
Old 01-16-2015, 07:06 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
I'm sure there are many LG passive 4k owners here that would disagree, I've heard nothing but good reviews.
You just pointed out the problem. You are listening to blind people, not people who care about good visual quality. The lying reviewers are the biggest problem with passive 3D because they trick so many unsuspecting people.

Never in a million years would someone who cares about good A/V quality consider lines running through the screen at all times making all content look interlaced acceptable. Never in a million years would someone who cares about good A/V quality consider cutting the resolution of everything in HALF an acceptable trade-off for slightly lighter glasses.

This is the thing that really rustles my jimmies about passive 3D pushers. They never feel compelled to mention all the severe artifacts and limitations of the technology when they are pimping 3D displays.

My first 1080p 3D TV was an LG after the glowing reviews I read on it. Not a single one of them mentioned anything about the TV looking like you were looking out a window with blinds. They did not mention how everything looked interlaced on the display or how there are black lines running through half the picture when you play back 3D content. There was nothing said about how low resolution 3D Blu-rays looked on it because it was cutting the resolution in half. I noticed all of these problems right away and I couldn't stand them.

I ended up having to return it to Newegg and pay a $100 restocking fee. I picked up a Samsung 3D TV as a replacement and lo and behold, the lines were gone, 3D Blu-rays no longer had black bars running through every other line, and 3D Blu-rays looked just as good as 2D Blu-rays thanks to no resolution loss. And the glasses weren't even much heavier.

The passive 3D pimps had cost me a lot of valuable time and money with their lies, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who was fooled by their deceptions due to my inexperience with 3D.

Someone on the NVIDIA forums took a good picture of the interlacing looking lines that are always running through their LG 4K TV.

This is absolutely awful, and this is what I noticed the first time I turned on my LG 1080p 3D TV. It is unbelievable that they are still manufacturing displays that have this defect even into the 4K era. Passive 3D TVs not only ruin everything played back in 3D, they ruin everything in 2D, too. My active Samsung 3D TVs sure as hell don't have these interlace lines running through the screen at all times.

Do you think the reviewers who write all these glowing reviews for passive 3D sets would ever include this image as a heads up to every reader that this is what they can expect from their passive 3D TV? HELL NO. If this was in the reviews I never would have been tricked into buying the stupid thing.

wigglywaffles is offline  
Old 01-16-2015, 07:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,059
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked: 192
Showing the left and right eyes at the same time is nearly as good as using two projectors, because there's one less frame of lag for one eye, meaning you get the frame packed signal at both eyes simultaneously.

Whether that's noticeable or not is debatable, but there is a lot of consternation about input lag in video games at least, and having your left and right eyes out of sync by 1 frame duration can't be good.

It's ridiculous to not include 3D in the UHD Bluray specification. I do think HDR + 2020 color and higher frame rate 2D is VERY important though. Also in theory a workaround for 3D movies is 2160p / 48hz (24hz per eye) or 30hz per eye (total 60hz), which is just another way of packing the data.

What we will need for Hobbit and Avatar 2 is 2160p / 96hz or 2160p / 120hz, so that you get 48hz or 60hz per eye, respectively.

Does 4K Bluray standard support 120hz? Or just 60hz. Because if it's 120hz, that's fine. I suspect HFR 3D of these movies might be an additional download option for high end customers. But regular 3D should work just fine mastered as 48hz or 60hz 2D.
RLBURNSIDE is online now  
Old 01-16-2015, 07:32 AM
Member
 
jh30uk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 20
LG newer passive is great and not half RES (read about it on their site),many review sites now agree for TV+Movies passive is better all round inc lighter/cheaper glasses.


Gaming on a PC monitor I would say Nvidia+Active is still better.


@ wigglywaffles, Who is to say you are the blind one, with those blanket statements you make are.


I am not really into 3D either way and am old enough to remember the last 2 so called breakthrough with it in movies.
jh30uk is online now  
Old 01-16-2015, 10:42 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,323
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 383 Post(s)
Liked: 178
Quote:
If they don't build it, they will never come. The only reason 1080p 3D TVs were built was because of the Blu-ray 3D format. 4K 3D TVs that support MVC will never be built if it is not included in the Blu-ray 4K format.
I would not be so quick to pass judgement in this area. Your thesis is based on hanging on to an older technology for media distribution, hard media. While it is true that hard media, bluRay offers the most bang for the buck today, it is quickly being eclipsed by streaming content as bandwidth capability around the world is rapidly getting better. I see the future in media distribution being entirely streamed and downloadable via the internet to home based servers. Don't judge the present limited offerings of today's streaming content and believe that is where progress in this area stops. In the future, the best bang of quality, 8K content, high bit rate color, 3D frame packed, and full multi channel master audio, Dolby Atmos, as well as a whole host of bonus content and something new- interactive viewer participation will all be available with internet distribution. Hanging your hat on BluRay optical disk is a temporary soon to die distribution method that has it's own limitations in capacity, and delay in delivery, not to mention ridiculous manufacturing costs.

When I was at CES I questioned reps at Sony, LG, and Samsung about BluRay for 4K and they all said the same thing. It's going to be short lived as we're all heading to all digital download and streaming very very soon. Sony has been the leader in this with their already on the market 4K server. I suspect you will soon see independents like TIVO offer a 4K server that will be compatible with the new 4K TV's The real trick here is making sure what you buy will connect to these servers.

I'm content with the price drop now for LED 3D 4K tv's and prefer passive. I've seen it and if sitting at a comfortable distance the black lines on the 4K set is barely noticeable. Even on my 2K Passive sets the lines are only noticeable when wearing my passive glasses and there is a 2D program. When 3D is playing the lines fill in. But the nice thing for me with passive is I can watch it all day when editing 3D and not suffer any eye strain. When I watch longer than 3 hours using my active screen I begin to suffer eye strain and slight headache, unless I do take a 40 minute break. I'm not saying everyone is affected this way but both my wife and I are with active. However, I love the higher resolution and larger image I can see with the active screen. When I get a 4K, I hope to choose a passive panel and maybe later on another active projector in 4K. I, a long way off from making the move, however. Enjoying what I now have.



Never say never.
maglito likes this.

Last edited by Don Landis; 01-16-2015 at 10:46 AM.
Don Landis is online now  
Old 01-16-2015, 11:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
film113's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
In the future, the best bang of quality, 8K content, high bit rate color, 3D frame packed, and full multi channel master audio, Dolby Atmos, as well as a whole host of bonus content and something new- interactive viewer participation will all be available with internet distribution. Hanging your hat on BluRay optical disk is a temporary soon to die distribution method that has it's own limitations in capacity, and delay in delivery, not to mention ridiculous manufacturing costs.
Maybe. But right now (except for NF), they can't even provide uncompressed audio. Heck, not even close-captioning!
film113 is offline  
Old 01-16-2015, 01:45 PM
Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 158
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 14
We live in a strange world where TVs (the cart) are now bigger and better--4K, than what the capability of cable (1080i and 720p) and other streaming boxes (the horses).

For 4K streaming, we still have a big infrastructure issue--the current cable boxes, strung cable, etc. can't handle it. So it will start as an expensive device hooked up to your internet cable at the highest speed you can pay for. Then a few streaming companies like Netflix and Amazon will start showing movies in 4K, but due to the 1080i coming through your cable, no company will be able to push a 4K channel through your cable box for a very, very long time. And to make it worse, some cable companies are simply upscaling a lot of 720p content.
Here's a link to a discussion about 1080i and 1080p and the misunderstanding around what major TV providers broadcast in terms of resolution. (This was posted on August, 2013, but still relevant.) I think it's going to be a real eye-opener for those waiting for 4K cable.
http://www.cnet.com/how-to/1080i-and...me-resolution/

So, what the heck is going to happen? The Internet has to divorce itself from cable to survive. The Internet and streaming will take off in a 4K direction, and cable will trot down a lonely road to extinction...10 years probably...and what about 8K? The mind boggles.
dew42 and Barry C like this.
3DBob is offline  
Old 01-17-2015, 09:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Richard Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,963
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by wigglywaffles View Post
According to the leaked specifications from Panasonic, the upcoming Ultra HD Blu-ray format is going to be a side-grade instead of an up-grade, because apparently 3D is not included anywhere in the specs!
The 3D profiles for HEVC are still in development and it would delay the format by at least a year if they were to wait for them.
Richard Paul is offline  
Old 01-18-2015, 09:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
NSX1992's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 17
To wigglywaffles:
Your bad experience with 1080p passive has soured you and you calling me(passive) stupid is totally unjustified. I have attempted to buy the best and latest technology. My first 3D set was a $25,000 DLP active 65" Mitsubishi, but I had to wait 2 years before 3D content became available. Then I moved up to 73", 82" and 92" active DLP Mitsubishi sets. Yes I saw the black horizontal lines in passive sets and was proud of my active set with no crosstalk. Everything changed when I bought my 84" LG 4K passive set. The 3D is amazing, no crosstalk, no horizontal lines and best of all no dimming. Yes I know passive cuts the vertical resolution in half but the 4K upscaling makes up for it resulting in picture quality better than the cinema. I sit 8 to 10 feet away and also play pc games in 4K.
NSX1992 is online now  
Old 01-18-2015, 01:04 PM
Senior Member
 
johnny905's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 335
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 21
wiggywaffles - If you didn't realize passive cut the resolution in half then shame on you for not doing 30sec of research. That is all it would have taken to find just one of the hundreds of active vs. passive debates on the internet. I for one own an active 3DTV and can't wait to buy an LG 4K 3DTV later this year. 4K 3DTV's eliminate the half resolution issue, but active 3DTVs still have to deal with flickering, heavy more expensive glasses, and making sure all of your glasses are charged before watching a movie. For me, passive is the way to go. No question.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wigglywaffles View Post
This is the thing that really rustles my jimmies about passive 3D pushers. They never feel compelled to mention all the severe artifacts and limitations of the technology when they are pimping 3D displays.

My first 1080p 3D TV was an LG after the glowing reviews I read on it. Not a single one of them mentioned anything about the TV looking like you were looking out a window with blinds. They did not mention how everything looked interlaced on the display or how there are black lines running through half the picture when you play back 3D content. There was nothing said about how low resolution 3D Blu-rays looked on it because it was cutting the resolution in half. I noticed all of these problems right away and I couldn't stand them.

I ended up having to return it to Newegg and pay a $100 restocking fee. I picked up a Samsung 3D TV as a replacement and lo and behold, the lines were gone, 3D Blu-rays no longer had black bars running through every other line, and 3D Blu-rays looked just as good as 2D Blu-rays thanks to no resolution loss. And the glasses weren't even much heavier.

The passive 3D pimps had cost me a lot of valuable time and money with their lies, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who was fooled by their deceptions due to my inexperience with 3D.
NSX1992 likes this.
johnny905 is offline  
Old 01-19-2015, 12:20 AM
Member
 
alyssanick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 16
All this talk about streaming being a direct competition for physical disc right now or in the very near future - is highly suspect.

Companies in America have just begun clamping data into monthly limit structures to stop piracy -- 4K movies in uncompressed files the size of on blu-ray disc will cost 50-75GB in some cases -- Some of these internet plans are 1TB. Thats 15 movies a month if you downloaded nothing else.. Yeah makes sense. Then you have the idea of time spent downloading which isn't short unless you have good fibre -- Streaming srervices then cost money, and their content will always be overly compressed nonsense (a videophile may stomache for 'convenience') that can't compete with the physical version. I simply don't understand these people who are purporting that streaming will overtake physical quality in *just a few years*...

Ultra-HD BD will be around for at least the same amount of time as BD has been to now (and BD isn't dead or dying itself yet). In that time I see it entirely likely that all these classics and must-have versions that have 4K scans from this era of archiving and BD release, will be made into the new BD, with 10-bit color, and HDR -- Plus new movies in their best quality.

Streaming can't touch those heights for 3+ years - at that time the rich can afford it. And 5-7yrs for general population. I'd say most people on HT forum sites will go down the 4K blu-ray route for their re-buys. This alone makes the physical medium relevant. And then after 5 years its probably going to be 50-50 streaming and physical.
alyssanick is offline  
Old 01-19-2015, 06:48 AM
Senior Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
I'm content with the price drop now for LED 3D 4K tv's and prefer passive. I've seen it and if sitting at a comfortable distance the black lines on the 4K set is barely noticeable. Even on my 2K Passive sets the lines are only noticeable when wearing my passive glasses and there is a 2D program. When 3D is playing the lines fill in.
You are fortunate that with your eyesight the lines fill in when viewing a 3D source on a Full HD passive 3D display. For me, I still see the horizontal black lines if at an average viewing distance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis
But the nice thing for me with passive is I can watch it all day when editing 3D and not suffer any eye strain. When I watch longer than 3 hours using my active screen I begin to suffer eye strain and slight headache, unless I do take a 40 minute break. I'm not saying everyone is affected this way but both my wife and I are with active.
Yes, I find shutter glasses operating at 120Hz somewhat flickery and I can sometimes see mirage effects in the motion. Passive 3D provides a more soothing, and calming, viewing experience for my vision.

Last edited by MLXXX; 01-19-2015 at 07:41 AM. Reason: Some content moved to my next post, below.
MLXXX is offline  
Old 01-19-2015, 07:41 AM
Senior Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 271
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post
The 3D profiles for HEVC are still in development and it would delay the format by at least a year if they were to wait for them.
And there is the question of graphics processing units and the onboard decoding they are capable of. It is asking for trouble to depend on a CPU to decode 4k 2D HEVC at 60p rather than a dedicated graphics processor. This would be even more of an issue with 4k 3D HEVC at 60p. So not only will the 3D profiles need to be finalised but the hardware, to decode and display the HEVC 3D video, designed and manufactured.

People such as wigglywaffles clamouring for true 4k 3D on home displays may be disappointed if that 4k 3D is shot and displayed at only 24fps. 24fps is not consistent with sharp video images and smoooth jitter-free motion even for 2D, and in 3D the jitter of 24fps is even more noticeable (as noted some years ago by James Cameron, who had wanted to shoot Avatar at a higher frame rate than ended up being used).

It is a great pity there was such a media beatup of Peter Jackson's use of 48fps for the first Hobbit movie. In my opinion that set back considerably the introduction of higher frame rates in the production of high definition cinema for 2D and 3D. The patrons I saw leaving the cinema of a 48fps showing of the first Hobbit movie had smiles on their faces. The alleged nausea from use of 48fps, reported in the media, was not in evidence. How people have managed to watch 1280x720 high definition sport on cable TV at 60fps without experiencing nausea remains a mystery...

As for the so-called soap opera effect of a high frame rate, if you want the clarity of true 4K resolution, you simply cannot achieve that at 24fps for video. So choose the blurry, juddery effect of traditional cinema at 24fps, or choose crisp high definition realistic video frames at a much higher frame rate. 3D at true 4k resolution achieved by using unusually short exposure times, but retaining a traditional 24fps frame rate, would look stroboscopic and unsettling. 24fps is a compromise that has just sufficed for 2D and traditional low resolution prints. Its limitations become more obvious at higher displayed resolutions, on bigger screens, and to a greater extent if viewing in 3D.

I fear we may have to wait for James Cameron's Avatar 2 to get real traction on a higher frame rate, at least for 3D. However Avatar 2 is not set for release until December 2016, with Avatar 3 and Avatar 4 following in 2017 and 2018. See http://screenrant.com/avatar-2-3-4-s...s-hfr-cameron/
Barry C likes this.
MLXXX is offline  
Old 01-19-2015, 10:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 578
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Didn't they bump the release of Avatar 2 to 2017? Almost 3 years to wait.

Higher frame rate is over rated imho. It didn't make me nauseous, mainly I didn't think it really added anything over 24p. That and it looks like a cartoon at HFR. 24p works just fine. It's all in the camera work and post production to get it to look right. However, I will concede that it may take some getting used to, which we've only had a few movies to view this way.

I don't think Cameron stated he will be releasing Avatar in HFR, just that it was a possibility.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off