Nvidia Announces 3D Blu-ray Format For 2010

Barence writes "Nvidia has announced that 3D Blu-ray movies will begin appearing in 2010. A spokesman confirmed that the Blu-ray Association — to which Nvidia is a contributor — had settled on the 'proper parameters [for] what constitutes a 3D Blu-ray' and claimed the first 3D Blu-ray films would hit the shelves 'towards the end of Summer 2010.' Nvidia will support the standard through its 3D Vision technology, using bit rates of around 60Mbits/second — twice that of a standard movie — although HDMI 1.3 'should have sufficient bandwidth' to ensure smooth playback. New files will be encoded using the MVC-AVC format, which is based on the AVC format currently used by Blu-ray movies.' Update: HotHardware has some additional details, including images of demo hardware.

Comments

More details including a notebook version...

[MojoKid]

Also, some nice high res images of the Acer panel here: http://hothardware.com/News/NVIDIA-Demos-3D-BluRay-On-3D-Vision/

New players AGAIN?

[Kardos]

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

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

Re:New players AGAIN?

[DebianDog]

HA my procrastination pays off AGAIN!

Re:New players AGAIN?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:New players AGAIN?

[interkin3tic]

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

Re:New players AGAIN?

[Killer Orca]

Players are the least of their worries, HDTVs were so cheap this holiday season they'll be harder pressed to make people buy a new 3d HDTV in only a years time.

Remind me why we need (or even want) this?

[Overzeetop]

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

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?

[Meshach]

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

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

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

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?

[abigor]

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

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?

[gEvil (beta)]

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

Think what you want, but I personally can't wait to witness the destructive forces of ShitStorm3D!!!

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?

[timeOday]

How do you feel about stereo sound? Stereo vision is just the same issue, except with more to gain since eyes are much higher bandwidth than ears.

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?

[Burning1]

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

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

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?

[TheSync]

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

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

The different views can be steered in different directions using lenticular arrays, a matrix of small mirrors or other beam steering devices on the display surface, or computer-generated holograms (aka electronically controlled diffraction-grating matrix).

I've seen some 12-view lenticular displays based on a quad-HD resolution 2D LCD panel that begins to be acceptable - but I've also seen a small ~200-view, 360-degree display based on a single spinning mirror that was awesome, but wouldn't scale to a 50" screen.

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?

[Overzeetop]

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

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

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

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

Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?

[vossman77]

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

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

fuck blueray

[Anonymous Coward]

http://fuckbluray.com/

DLP?

[goombah99]

I'm not really interested in having a fancy pants 3D diplay on my computer or laptop. All I want it is on the wall and it seems to me the simplest way to get it there is DLP projection since you can decouple how the pixels are created from the display surface. i.e. just use a regular DLP at twice the frame rate. Have the rotating color wheel or a secondary wheel do the polarization flipping. That way there's no crazy polarizer the size of the display surface or a linticlar lens system to mess with. cheap and effective. The trick will be doubling (or quadrupleing) the DLP frame rate which is an easily forseable and incremental technology advance. Worst case is to use two DLP chips and a ploarizing beam splitter which could be done right now.

What's lacking for the consumer is a dvd format that stores the alternating frame info and standard that transmits via RGB or what ever to the projector with the proper left-right sync.

Why is this taking so long? and when will I be able to buy one.

Re:DLP?

[pnewhook]

You're right - half is half, realized this later. Although displays I've seen increase the brightness when using shutter glasses to compensate.

Like that's going to work this time...

[mrboyd]

From TFA

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

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

Eh

[ShooterNeo]

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

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

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

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

3D glasses the death of this

[syousef]

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

Re:Color? Why?

[MooseMuffin]

I don't need to wear special glasses to see color tv.

It will NEVER catch on.

[rAiNsT0rm]

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

Warning: You're being "marketed"

[fyngyrz]

This is stereo vision, not 3D. Two images taken from a single, locked human-like perspective (meaning they're about an eye-width apart.) This is precisely the same technique the toy View-Master has been using since 1939, only with a stream of frame-pairs instead of a single pair.

Actual 3D allows you to see from multiple perspectives, defined by your angle of view. If you move your head, the scene changes. In a fully implemented display, if you went behind the display, you'd see the rear of the scene. That's 3D.

If you allow the manufacturers to pervert stereo views into "3D", what will you call actual 3D when it becomes available?