Projectors and 3D movies??

Yes it is filmmed as a double image they use 2 Cameras.. So in the end you need a 3D Projector and a 3d capable Blu ray to playback 3D Materiel..not sure but you maybe able to use 2 Projectors using the polarisation process..

Now wheter they can do this with a Firmware upgrade for the Blu ray we shall se. I beleive they are making the PS3's 3D ready with a FW Upgrade..

The key to 3d is very simple - each eye sees a slightly different version of the film. Several ways to do it:
Most common is 120hz. The way that works is one image is left-eye, next image is right-eye, and you wear glasses that block the "wrong" image from each eye.
Other methods involve filters - the image is polarized or color-coded and you wear glasses to allow only the specified image to each eye.

As for whether you can get converters, it's simply unnecessary. 3d blurays will play on 2d bluray players into 2d hdtvs (not in 3d though). They will also play on 3d bluray players into 2d hdtvs, or 2d bluray players into 3d hdtvs. The only difference is if you have a 3d bluray, 3d player, and 3d tv, then it will all show up in 3d. Otherwise it works just like it did before 3d.

Also, keep in mind, the 120hz option has made 3d a pretty inexpensive option to buy hardware for. While the 3d bluray players are a bit steep at the moment, there's actually no additional hardware required, so that price will drop to "normal" fairly quickly. Same applies to tvs, and can already be seen with 720p 3d projectors under $700 (albeit without hdmi 1.4). If you're buying equipment anyway, the expense only comes into play when you start looking at adding glasses- which, since all this hardware and software is 100% 2d backward compatible, is unnecessary unless you actually want to see 3d.

If you have 2d equipment already, it's up to you - if it's not worth replacing all your stuff, cool, don't - you won't have trouble using the 3d material on it in 2d.

50 or 60hz is the minimum refresh rate needed so that the viewer does not see headache inducing flickering in the image. All current displays are capable of at least that. On the one hand I can kinda understand where the naysayers are coming from who go on about how the TV companies are jumping on this 3D bandwagon to sell more TV's. I don't agree with them though. Why do we never hear them say they will refuse to buy a Playstation 4 when it comes out and that Sony are just trying to sell them a new console when there PS3 is perfectly good at playing games. Its the same thing!! The way some people go on you would also swear the TV manufacturers didn't make it backwards compatible with current Gen displays just to force us to buy a new TV. Of course no matter what, they would indeed prefer us to buy a new TV, thats just capitilism. However they didn't 'manufacture' this Refresh Rate problem to force us to buy the new TV's. Sure they could have made interface boxes that hook up to a current gen TV and sync with the glasses but the current TV's are only capable of 60HZ. Split that in 2 and you only get 30HZ per eye. Flicker City!! Its simply a necessity that the display be capable of 120hz refresh so that when split in two you get a flickerless 60hz per eye. You can't blame them for not making 100-120hz capable TV's pre 3D when it was not needed.

I agree, it's likely to be a slow adoption, but it's not at ALL likely to fail. Reason being, as noted before, manufacturing a 3d hd tv/projector/player is in no way more expensive than manufacturing the 2d equivelant, other than the higher refresh rate. The movies are more expensive, but the movie industry is having a pretty major theater revival attributable to 3d, so the actual films will be made regardless. So if 2000 people buy 3d stuff now, they make nothing, but lose nothing - then in 3-5 years when people start replacing equipment, they'll repace it with 3d.

That's my guess anyway.

So reading the specs of my low-end 720p projector I get:
Dot Clock 110 MHz
H-Sync Range 15 ~ 80 kHz
V-Sync Range 50 ~ 85 Hz

That means there's no 120hz option for me, right? I didn't think there would be.

Second question: is the video portion of the BRD double the size on disc? I'm trying to reconcile the 24fps of BRD spec with this talk of 120hz. Wouldn't 48hz do the trick (24 frames right eye, 24 frames left eye)? More than that is just extrapolated frames, no? Ovb the audio wouldn't be impacted at all, but will they have to fit twice the video onto a single 50GB disc?

I'm really trying to get at the question of the 3d MKV future, as there are no BRDs available where I live, all my HD comes that way. I feel like I missed a turning point in the history of motion pictures when I failed to see Avatar in 3d. Loved it in 2d, anyway.

For bluray, it's recorded in the exact same framerate as traditional bluray, but instead of being 1920x1080 frames, it's double height plus a 40-something-pixel buffer, with the top being the frame for one eye and the bottom being the frame for the other - so ending up with 1920x2215 or something wacky like that.

However, keep in mind there are two different frequency numbers:
1) framerate of the recording - the rate at which the picture in the source media changes from one picture to the other, and
2) refresh rate of the display - the rate at which the picture on the screen re-draws itself.

The thing is, with active shutter solutions, between each frame the eye sees a "black" space. Our eyes will perceive that as flicker if the refresh rate for each eye drops below 60hz. Thus, the display must refresh at 120hz or higher to display active shutters without flicker.


As for disc space, back when bluray and hd-dvd were fighting, most held the belief that a standard movie in full hd would have no trouble fitting on an hd-dvd as long as the extras were kept to a minimum. So based on that, a 3d movie shouldn't have trouble fitting on a bluray, they just may have to cut back on extras. Not to mention, I seem to recall reading that there was still plenty of capacity for layering if it becomes necessary.


Sorry, my last post was a meandering mess... My point was that to bluray player or tv manufacturers, the additional cost to support 3d is extremely small, so there's no real reason for them to drop the standard, even if it's not being adopted.

Ultimately content will make or break 3D. It doesn't include Harry Potter and Avatar 2, which are also coming, and a regurgitation of 2D into 3D (e.g. Titanic), but I'd say the list (see below) overall it's pretty lame. Not that people won't watch it--they will for a couple of years, then if the content doesn't kick up, they will get bored with putting on glasses and it will be a slow death as funding runs out. I'm thinking that 4k HD might win out over 3D in the years to come or at least cause great pain (read high cost) to switch standards.

http://3dguy.tv/3d-movie-list/

4K resolution with 48 fps (assuming they don't use 8 bit colorspacing again!) as James Cameron has envisioned would be IMHO better than gimmicky 3D (that will probably cause a lot of headache and eye strain complaints), and have a much greater chance of success.

One good thing about 3D... it's causing studios to rethink 7.1 channel audio mixing, which pretty much dried up once New Line Home Video was folded into WHV. These tracks will then get added to Blu-ray releases!

Disney and Dolby will be releasing Toy Story 3 with a true, fully realized 7.1 audio mix to select commercial 3D theaters. The channel layout is just like the consumer 7.1 plan with three channels up front, two sides, two back surrounds, and an LFE channel.

FYI, there are sub-forums for discussing 3D, including a Display forum:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=191

And threads like "Any 3D Projectors coming?":
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1235639


Not trying to stop this discussion but the 3D sub-forums have lots of lively discussions going on!

3D will be worth it.

Before long, 3D will be the only viable standard of video entertainment and flat land will become an awful place to be stuck in.

Also, there will be decent 2D to 3D converters coming to the market. There is very good 2D to 3D commercial processors NOW but they are very EXPENSIVE but content producers are converting 2D films to 3D TODAY - Clash of the Titans is an example.

It's only a bit of time to get similar technology down to affordable consumer units with reasonable on-the-fly image processing.

Yep - old B.Ray and other 2D equipment will become boat anchors but the upgrade will be so very worth it!

I thought that the fourth Dimension was time.

So......are you saying that if you suffer from the effects that 3D images have on certain individuals that those people will have no choice but to live without tv? What do you mean when you say "awful". I kind of understand what you are saying, but I think it's a little premature to say that 2D is not the future, why can't both coexist? I for one can't watch it, it makes me sick to my stomach. I know I can't be alone in this phenomenon.

BURN THE WITCH!




Just kidding.