Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony Announces First 3D Blu-ray Disc Players

Posted by timothy on from the please-remaster-that-boring-casablanca dept.

angry tapir writes "Sony has announced a new 3D Blu-ray Disc player and upgrades to existing players so that they will be able to show high-definition 3D movies too. The company introduced the BDP-S470 Blu-ray Disc model and upgraded existing home theater systems, which will be able to play Blu-ray movies when related firmware for the devices is released later this year. Movies based on the Blu-ray 3D specification, which was finalized by the Blu-ray Association in December, can be shown on the players."

145 comments

  1. HDMI spec by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec?

    Having the media standard and players are nice, but until I know I have a TV that will support a standard (that will be around for more than 2 seconds) is somewhat important as well.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:HDMI spec by berashith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      exactly , this is why I am still using my trusted analog rabbit ears ...

    2. Re:HDMI spec by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec?

      If they claimed to stand behind it, would you trust them?

      I can imagine this being announced by most, implemented by some, and then abandoned by all due to industry spats and lack of consumer interest. Then a lucky few will own the TV equivalent of 1970s laserdisc players.

    3. Re:HDMI spec by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      HDMI is supported by just about everything save for Apple.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:HDMI spec by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      There is a new proposed HDMI spec for the additional bandwidth needed, but it doesn't have widespread acceptance by the TV industry yet.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    5. Re:HDMI spec by hazydave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So far, the TV manufacturers are standing behind HDMI... DisplayPort is being pushed as the official computer industry replacement for DVI. There's a virtual certainty that some TVs will eventually grow DisplayPorts, but hey, most modern TVs have VGA connectors too. It's not as if anyone making a television is all THAT worried about cutting down on the ports count.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    6. Re:HDMI spec by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Well, of course it doesn't quite yet, its just that, new and proposed. HDMI isn't going anywhere just like USB isn't. But right now USB 3.0 ports are still a rarity on most computers. There are very, very few people who are going to want to spend the money buying -another- HDTV, and most people just want a cheap one.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    7. Re:HDMI spec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't exactly analog anymore if you live in the US. I will say though that broadcast TV is the best solution right now. Who needs all those other channels? What can you watch on them you can't see on Hulu?

    8. Re:HDMI spec by dangitman · · Score: 1, Informative

      HDMI is supported by just about everything save for Apple.

      Trolling again, I see. Apple computers are perfectly capable of outputting over HDMI.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    9. Re:HDMI spec by Hatta · · Score: 2, Informative

      To receive what? Analog TV is dead in the US. If you're still watching OTA broadcasts, spend an hour on a weekend to make one of these. It works much better for DTV than rabbit ears. I found the reflector to be unnecessary.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:HDMI spec by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

      In 1998 they were all behind IEEE1394, which had very good link-level copy-protection. It was going to tie all the home theater components together. Sony made one TV with it, calling their version iLink. Then Intel turned its back on it, favoring USB 2.0, and that was the end of it. Even Apple, who owns many if the patents (calling it Firewire), has backed away from it.

    11. Re:HDMI spec by nuclearpenguins · · Score: 1

      In my case, live sporting events. The Internet streaming options aren't quite ready for primetime yet.

      --
      Anonymous Coward: "This is slashdot. Accuracy is second class citizen here, unlike King Bias."
    12. Re:HDMI spec by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The markets went with the compatible option (works with existing USB 1.0 devices and hosts) and the mass market option (whatever wintel supports out of the box). IEEE1394 is better in many (most) ways, but the market of generic computer users prefer the cheapest thing that gets the job done; ie, the just-good-enough option. 1394 ended up as more of a high end thing, so was more commonly used in the Mac market where they're used to spending a bit of a premium. (and 1394 wasn't really about video, it was just a serial SCSI bus, good for video or hard disks or cd burners or whatever high volume peripheral you had)

      For HDMI though, that feels inherently like a high-end thing. Something that people on the bleeding edge want. The mass market isn't excited about this; they just want to hook up a DVD player or DVR to a new TV. If the mass market does care about the latest thing, then it's about how big the new TV is not the technical details. If they subscribe to cable/satellite/u-verse, they want it to plug into whatever ten year old TV they have. Yes, lots of early adopters to be sure but it's not a ma-and-pa thing.

    13. Re:HDMI spec by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Any old TV antenna should work just fine in the new era because the digital TV band is a subset of the TV bands used before. I'm pulling in digital HD signals from stations that I used to get a fuzzy picture from using the same rooftop antenna. HD Radio works too!

    14. Re:HDMI spec by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "They aren't exactly analog anymore if you live in the US."

      Physics error! All transmissions, digital or otherwise, are still carried by means of an analog electromagnetic emission.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    15. Re:HDMI spec by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      save for Apple.

      Is that will, reflex, or fortitude?

    16. Re:HDMI spec by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      To receive what? Analog TV is dead in the US.

      Maybe they are close to the boarder, Canada is still not all digital broadcast (until Aug 2011) not sure Mexico has announced any HD plans (I can still get several Mexican Analog stations but not likely from across the boarder, 50 miles away.)

    17. Re:HDMI spec by socsoc · · Score: 1

      People still don't get this? On /. of all places? The US DTV conversion had almost nothing to do with HD. HD is one of many standards in ATSC Digital TV, but isn't the same thing. You could have non-hd digital transmissions and plenty of stations do.

    18. Re:HDMI spec by socsoc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All of my cable company devices have always had very good copy-protection in IEEE1394, to the point where they were disabled and plugging a cable into it was as useful as plugging it up with mud. I thought the FCC required it, but maybe there was some grey area where you only needed to physically supply it, but not have it usable.

    19. Re:HDMI spec by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      FYI, most US DigitalTV stations are UHF. since rabbit ears are very lousy UHF antennas... So while your old antenna may work fine; rabbit ears, without a UHF loop are not.

    20. Re:HDMI spec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HDMI is supported by just about everything save for Apple.

      Trolling again, I see. Apple computers are perfectly capable of outputting over HDMI.

      No they are not. The HDMI spec includes audio, and apple computers don't output audio via their displayport port, even though the standard allows for it.

      Sure, you can hook up an adapter to go from displayport to hdmi, but that's like saying my old monitor is capable of receiving hdmi output because I can hook an hdmi device to it via hdmi-dvi cable. You're just being ridiculous.

    21. Re:HDMI spec by TheSync · · Score: 1

      9% of the total digital TV stations in the United States still utilize VHF. Las Vegas in an interesting market with 5 VHF stations,

  2. What about the PS3? by Xamusk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought the PS3 would be the first one to have BR 3D support, since it was announced when the spec became ready.

    1. Re:What about the PS3? by Xamusk · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I thought the PS3 would be the first one to have BR 3D support, since it was announced when the spec became ready.

      I guess they will release an update to the PS3 firmware only when those new players are old and sold out.

    2. Re:What about the PS3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/10/ps3-getting-3d-firmware-update-this-summer/
      Or, maybe this summer

    3. Re:What about the PS3? by Gandhi+of+War · · Score: 5, Informative

      It says in the first linked article that the PS3 will be supported by the Blu-ray 3D specs.

    4. Re:What about the PS3? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      The PS3 will be able to accommodate the spec as per Sony's announcement at CES last month. It's all a mater of when Sony pushes out the update for it. Apparently, the bigger problem is that you'll likely need a new TV from what I've been able to find. There are some models that are apparently capable of supporting it, but it seems fairly sparse.

      As far as I know there isn't a lot of content out there to take advantage of either. Avatar is a nice example, but I can't think of anything else off of the top of my head that's mainstream or will be ready any time soon.

    5. Re:What about the PS3? by hazydave · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they're prototyping these Blu-Ray upgrades on the PS3.

      But Sony's not just going to upgrade your PS3 for 3D Blu-Ray. They need to have support for 3D games, and of course, Sony's version of 3D shutter glasses so you can actually make use of the thing. My guess is they use Bluetooth for the sync... no need to add-on any hardware to the PS3, and receiving what's essentially 60 "flip a bit" signals per second can't be all that draining on the battery. It's a good move... I don't know if I'd worry too much about 3D if it meant a new TV and Blu-Ray player and all, but if it's $100 for a pair of glasses or two from Sony, I'm in.

      Sony is almost certainly doing Blu-Ray over HDMI-1.3. The PS3 can only deliver a 60p video, so they're going to do field-multiplexed 30p stereoscopic, which should be good enough, as well as working on existing gear. HDMI 1.4 will support a bunch of more sophisticated 3D modes... presumably, there's some formula for handshaking the specific version between player and TV. This also makes the TV 3D aware, which it will not be over HDMI 1.3. But hey, you can do 3D today on plain old everyday computer monitors as long as the PC is driving the shutter sync, so this ought to work fine now.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    6. Re:What about the PS3? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't be an issue I think. The CPU and GPU specs have the same level of processing power. Only items removed after launch were the PS2 hardware emulation and a few I/O ports on newer units.

      Actually, ALL PS2 emulation was removed. The launch units had a PS2 inside them, the later ones had just one of the parts, while the cheap one lacked it and couldn't do PS2 playback at all. The new slim ones also cannot play PS2 games, and cannot do "OtherOS" (aka Linux). And lack 2 USB ports.

      What I want to know is if the PS3 was so forward looking that it can support 3D Blu-Ray, why can't the launch units handle piping Dolby Digital TrueHD/DTS Master Audio over HDMI? They only pass through the DD/DTS core streams, and the only other way is LPCM, but the PS3 only outputs 48kHz (TrueHD/Master Audio can do lossless 192kHz/24bit/7.1 output, and it appears the PS3 really only likes to output 48kHz/7.1...). The new Slims can do TrueHD/Master Audio just fine, though.

    7. Re:What about the PS3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I want to know is if the PS3 was so forward looking that it can support 3D Blu-Ray, why can't the launch units handle piping Dolby Digital TrueHD/DTS Master Audio over HDMI? They only pass through the DD/DTS core streams, and the only other way is LPCM, but the PS3 only outputs 48kHz (TrueHD/Master Audio can do lossless 192kHz/24bit/7.1 output, and it appears the PS3 really only likes to output 48kHz/7.1...). The new Slims can do TrueHD/Master Audio just fine, though.

      The inability of non-slim PS3s to bitstream the HD audio codecs is in fact a hardware limitation of the HDMI chip used in the older models. Also, you are incorrect in saying that the PS3 only outputs 48kHz. If you have a disc that has lossless audio mastered at 96kHz (or even 192kHz), the PS3 will output the decoded PCM stream at that higher sample rate (trust me, I have a few discs that work perfectly fine with my 40GB PS3).

    8. Re:What about the PS3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blu-Ray is limited to 192kHz/24bit in 5.1 only, for 7.1 you can only use 48, or 96kHz

    9. Re:What about the PS3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it will be. These players will ship without 3D firmware, to be provided later. The PS3 update is due before the Summer for BD 3D, and the firmware for 3D gaming was delivered to devs earlier this week to get 3D games out for the Summer Bravia launch.

      It's a great time to be a PS3 owner, all the best games are PS3 exclusives and the console is uber-upgradable.

    10. Re:What about the PS3? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      The PS3 can only deliver a 60p video, so they're going to do field-multiplexed 30p stereoscopic

      Keep in mind that most stereoscopic movies are still 24p. Thus frame-alternating left/right a 24 views/second for each eye means the equivalent bandwidth of 1080p48, less than the 1080p60 HDMI 1.3 is capable of.

  3. until the glasses are gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3d will never catch on

    1. Re:until the glasses are gone by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      There doesn't seem much point for TV. It would be nice for computer desktops though where I actually could find uses for a 3D desktop model.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  4. InB4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In before "3D gives me headaches" and "I'm too cool to wear the glasses".

  5. I'll pass.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Let me know when they release the first 4D Blu-ray disc players.

    1. Re:I'll pass.... by Itninja · · Score: 1

      They already did, like 25 years from now. I was amazed at how many ifths per oofth it will have.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    2. Re:I'll pass.... by dindi · · Score: 1

      it is 3d .... then you can move in time within the boundaries of the movie. that is an extra D there for you.

  6. Why bother by eparker05 · · Score: 1

    The X-Prize brain-computer interface will make this obsolete in only 40 years.

  7. Meh by clang_jangle · · Score: 0, Troll

    But they'll still have to squeeze years worth of storytelling into about two hours. Screw that, I'm holding out for 4D.

    Okay, seriously -- what do they think, that everyone will just keep several extra sets of funny glasses around so when company comes they can get a headac^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H watch bad fake "3D" too? They're dreaming.

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
    1. Re:Meh by vlm · · Score: 1

      everyone will just keep several extra sets of funny glasses around so when company comes they can

      Hard to say if their plan is to profit off the "everyone brings their own $200 sunglasses" model, or the "every house has a stack of paper plates" model.

      I could see this as a path to get everyone to upgrade their glasses... baby boomers aren't getting any younger, they probably all wear glasses, and its time for the corps to shear the sheep again?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really doesn't matter to me if some corporate shills spitefully mod me "troll". It is bad, fake 3D and you all know it. You're not fooling anyone.

  8. Do Not Want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bottome line: 3D tech will not work at home in any real way until anybody in the room is able to view it just fine with the naked eye.

    1. Re:Do Not Want by tolkienfan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Future generations will have genetically engineered polarized corneas for the purpose.

  9. It is HDMI, forget DisplayPort for TV by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sony and Blu-Ray are behind HDMI, as is every other media company around. Any TV that does not support HDMI will have no market share.

  10. Finally by SnarfQuest · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally, a 3D blue-ray player! I keep losing my 2-dimensional player when the wind blows it under the couch. It's impossible to see from the side, since it is infinately thin, so I have to move the couch to be able to see it from the top or bottom. They should have made them 3 dimensional in the first place!

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Finally by vlm · · Score: 1

      Finally, a 3D blue-ray player! I keep losing my 2-dimensional player when the wind blows it under the couch. It's impossible to see from the side, since it is infinately thin, so I have to move the couch to be able to see it from the top or bottom. They should have made them 3 dimensional in the first place!

      I still have one of those old fashioned "entertainment centers" you know a 2001-movie style monolith of wood with cutouts for various machinery such as my CRT TV. In that scenario, 2D devices stack nicely in the limited space available as if a stack of paper.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:Finally by FrigBot · · Score: 1

      Heh heh.

    3. Re:Finally by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      In that scenario, 2D devices stack nicely in the limited space available as if a stack of paper.

      Yeah, but I find that the wooden frame can only support ten or fifteen thousand of the players, since even though the 2D players have no thickness they still have mass. And the cabling is a real mess once you get past fifteen or twenty.

      It is nice that you can pick them up for nothing at the local store. Just keep the thin edge pointed towards the security camera and they never see you walking out with one. Or ten. Just be careful -- remember how bad a paper cut is, being cut by the edge of a 2D blue-ray is worse. Thankfully they contain a laser that can cauterize the wound while making it.

      (I've got one of those centers, too. Not made for HD TVs. If I want to replace my reasonably sized regular TV with an HD, I have to get a really small HD. Or I guess I could just have it stick out the left edge, it won't cover anything there.)

  11. Right, but... by Singularity42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's yet another HDMI version. They were supposed to even have larger connectors that transferred more data, but I see those nowhere. I'm not seeing why a 24 Hz movie can't be doubled to 48 Hz for 3D when it transfers at 60 Hz anyway usually. I think the tremendous amount of bandwidth needed for those black bars around movies means we all have to upgrade.

    1. Re:Right, but... by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      Most of the different HDMI versions are just implementations in software, not hardware. That is why all it takes to make the PS3 capable of 3D is a software upgrade.

      When you see an "HDMI 1.3" cable, it is likely 100% identical to a 1.1 cable - the only difference is in the tolerance requirements of the conductors.

    2. Re:Right, but... by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      60Hz transfers only of half the screen, so they're 30 Hz effective.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    3. Re:Right, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its HDMI 1.4

      http://www.hdmi.org/press/press_release.aspx?prid=101

      There are new specs for connectors, but its mostly a mini connector (camcorders ect.) and a connector for automotive use.

      Most of the 3D and the higher resolution formats (4Kx4K , 4Kx2K ect) arn't spec'd for full 60Hz refresh rates (30Hz or slower), so they don't exceed the available bandwidth (around 20Gbs) on the existing cable.

    4. Re:Right, but... by dangitman · · Score: 4, Informative

      60Hz transfers only of half the screen, so they're 30 Hz effective.

      Not at 60p, it doesn't. 60p, whether at 1080 or 720 resolution tranfers a full frame 60 times per second. It's only interlaced formats that are transfer half the image with each refresh.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    5. Re:Right, but... by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      Yes, but what devices support 60p output? Or for that matter, do any TVs support 60p input? 60i, yes; 24p, yes; I haven't heard of 60p usage outside of computers, though.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    6. Re:Right, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't gone TV shopping in a while, have you? Any HDTV supports 720p60 and any new one that is large enough (that is, around 30"+) supports 1080p60.

    7. Re:Right, but... by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      Holy shit have you been in a cave? We've had 60Hz progressive scan for ages in LCD and Plasma TVs!

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:Right, but... by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      My TV supports 1080p 120hz and it's from 2 years ago.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    9. Re:Right, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You're out of touch with the market then, aren't you?

      PS3 & XBox360 both support 1080p @ 60Hz, and all TVs listed as 1080p will support 60Hz input.

      In terms of movies playing at 60Hz, no. Most are of course still recorded at 24 fps on film.

    10. Re:Right, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are both wrong, and a douchebag. pretty much every videogame console outputs 60p, and pretty much every tv supports it just fine. what you havent heard of could fill an ocean. quit trying to be an authority on anything

    11. Re:Right, but... by Anarki2004 · · Score: 1

      Correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought the XBox360 only supported 720p and simulated 1080p.

      --
      The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
    12. Re:Right, but... by hazydave · · Score: 1

      Actually, support for 1080/60p input is more common in TVs than support for 1080/24p input, believe it or not. There's not much advantage to accepting 1080/24p if your screen refresh is fixed, or variable up to only 60p... the TV or the video source can do the higher speed pulldown from 24p, but it still has to be done.

      Once you have variable refresh to 120Hz, as many of the 2009-vintage HDTVs do, then you can get a better display accepting 24p and pulling it to 72p output. So it's much more common to find 1080/24p support in more recent, higher refresh TVs.

      My 71" Samsung DLP from 2006, for example, supports 1080/60p input just dandy, but not 1080/24p.

      And of course, 720/60p is a standard HDTV format.. pretty much every HDTV supports it.

      I think the original point is, for stereoscopic TV using existing hardware, if you have a 1080/60p or 720/60p input, you can have 30p per eye. It'll look ok, though of course, 60p per eye would be better yet, but the interfaces don't support that, anyway. The HDMI 1.4 specs support a number of more sophisticated stereoscopic video options, but they require active participation by the TV. Frame-multiplexing is easily done without the TV's knowledge, as long as the display is fast enough (and obviously, the player can do the switching).

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    13. Re:Right, but... by hazydave · · Score: 1

      That's incorrect. The original XBox 360 lacked a digital video output, and would only produce a 1080/60i output over analog, since virtually no analog HDTVs supported 1080/60p on YCrCb inputs. But the new ones support HDMI, like the PS3, and do 1080/60p just dandy.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    14. Re:Right, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My PS3 sends 1080/60p continuously to my Panasonic plasma. I wouldn't be able to enjoy the full glory of wipEout HD if it didn't.

    15. Re:Right, but... by Scarumanga · · Score: 1

      I think a 24AWG cable has more than enough bandwidth...

    16. Re:Right, but... by Scarumanga · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually your a tad wrong there, the Xbox360 can output full 1080p over its HD Component output's, you just need decent HDTV that supports 1080p over component (like sharp aquos). This is how i have my 360 setup as its a first gen.

    17. Re:Right, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XBox 360 does 1080p @ 60hz, well that is what the TV reports it is receiving and displaying.

      My bluRay player will also do that for content recorded at 60hz, typically upscaled TV documentries on the "Making Of..." etc.

    18. Re:Right, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My PS3 and Samsung LN52A860 LCD both support 1080p60. In fact, that's the default mode for the XMB when it comes up.

    19. Re:Right, but... by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

      That is why all it takes to make the PS3 capable of 3D is a software upgrade.

      Actually, the current PS3 will not be certified as Bluray 3D compatible. It can only support a subset of the new standards without hardware changes (it can't implement one of the required modes .. Frame alternative, I believe, but I could be wrong).

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    20. Re:Right, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooohh!! tell him about the 120Hz televisions!!

    21. Re:Right, but... by MistrBlank · · Score: 1

      120? What rock are you under, those new 240's are where it's at these days.

  12. Launch PS3? by Singularity42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Including the launch PS3 (I think they were 20/60 GB)? Only so much you can do with a system update.

    1. Re:Launch PS3? by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Shouldn't be an issue I think. The CPU and GPU specs have the same level of processing power. Only items removed after launch were the PS2 hardware emulation and a few I/O ports on newer units.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Launch PS3? by Gandhi+of+War · · Score: 1

      The article I read didn't specify, but I feel like they would've said if the launch PS3's weren't able to support them. It'll probably be a big update though, so start getting rid of those save games you'll never use again.

    3. Re:Launch PS3? by Edgewize · · Score: 3, Informative

      You would be amazed what firmware can do. Sony recently announced a revision to the physical disc format that places the pits closer together to increase storage by a significant percentage... and all existing Blu-Ray drives will be made compatible via firmware.

      There is a reason that these drives cost so much to manufacture. The physical hardware is incredibly generic, and nobody really knows the limits of its capabilities.

    4. Re:Launch PS3? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Why would you think an update be be that large? We are only talking about an additional protocol and maybe some post processing of the video. Nothing fancy at all. In fact, the Sony BDP-S370 will also be getting an update and already has a similar XMB GUI that the PS3 uses. I'm not sure how much internal flash storage the BDP-S370 has, but the BDP-S570 has 1GB internal. Not much at all.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Launch PS3? by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      If anything, the launch PS3s are more capable, having extra chips under the hood to also be able to play PS2 games.

  13. Stereoscopic != 3D by stavrica · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Is anybody else bothered by the false advertising that well funded corporate marketing and headline-seeking news is shoving down the public's collective throat?

    Claiming that a stereoscopic picture is the equivalent of a 3 dimensional projection is the equivalent of presenting a stereo entertainment center and claiming that it is surround sound.

    1. Re:Stereoscopic != 3D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.

      Maybe one day when there is actual (commercially available) 3 Dimensional Projection it would matter. Since there's not, No, I'm not bothered at all.

    2. Re:Stereoscopic != 3D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Claiming that a stereoscopic picture is the equivalent of a 3 dimensional projection is the equivalent of presenting a stereo entertainment center and claiming that it is surround sound.

      Stereoscopic, def.: "The viewing of objects as three-dimensional."

      Clue: you're being a douche when you rant on threads you have nothing to contribute, beside the obvious.

    3. Re:Stereoscopic != 3D by ChefInnocent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly. I was bothered by the "Flat Screens" being sold in a confusing manner to "Flat Panel". I dislike "High Definition DVD Player" which "upscales" DVDs to "HD resolutions" as a method to confuse consumers expecting HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. I loath 480p/i, 720p/i, and other resolution display devices being sold as HDTV in markets where the consumer is expecting 1080p/1080i.

      I have issues with marketers selling crap using names that approximate something else in an effort to confuse the consumer into making a purchase they would not otherwise make. In this case though, masses will not rush out to buy a 3D tv/player with the expectation of anything other than stereo-scopic projection. I leave some room for a few true idiots out there who may believe they are getting 3D TV as I believe society was built upon the stupidity clause. However, since we don't have anything coming to market with "true 3 dimensional projection", 3D Blu-ray is fine.

    4. Re:Stereoscopic != 3D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These types of movies have been called 3D for about 60 years. What percentage of the population do you think is confused by what someone means when they say 3D movie (other than you, apparently)?

    5. Re:Stereoscopic != 3D by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      720p is closer to HD than 1080i. 720 lines is more than 540.

      Interlacing should just go die.

    6. Re:Stereoscopic != 3D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1080i: Each half-frame is 1920*540 = 1036800 pixels
      720p: Each full frame is 1280*720 = 921600 pixels

      Which one is higher definition again?

    7. Re:Stereoscopic != 3D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      720p24 is less than 1080i60.

      Yes, interlace should die, but with a frame-rate double its lesser lined equivalent, the resolution of the higher-lined but interlaced content will be higher.

    8. Re:Stereoscopic != 3D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anything actually use 720p24 except for (possibly) some films? ATSC uses 720p60.

    9. Re:Stereoscopic != 3D by Korbeau · · Score: 1

      You haven't seen Avatar, have you?

    10. Re:Stereoscopic != 3D by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      It sounds more like you're sick of advertising. Period.

      Nobody, except the most clueless of rock-dwelling hermits, will think that 3D television projects a 3-dimensional environment into their living room, and thus pinning a deceptive advertising charge would be difficult to impossible.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  14. About time! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

    I gotta say I can't wait for 3D BluRay discs to come out. I keep accidentally losing the 2D ones between the atoms of my couch!

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  15. Finally... by markowen58 · · Score: 1

    I'd been struggling along with a 2D one which was an absolute nightmare to find when viewed end on...

    This extra dimension you refer to interests me, do you have more information in the form of a pop up book?

  16. Of course. by supersloshy · · Score: 0, Troll

    1) Create Blu-ray Players
    2) Try to push people to buy lots of expensive new hardware and media
    3) Keep changing the encryption methods so people are left in the dust if they bought a cheap player
    4) Keep changing formats so people have to buy new players
    5) Profit!

    Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch some non-DRMed media on my free as in freedom media player over my home network on my Linux desktop... for free.

    --
    "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    1. Re:Of course. by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      >> 4) Keep changing formats so people have to buy new players *and DVDs of the same movies*

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    2. Re:Of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 2) Try to push people to buy lots of expensive new hardware and media

      I think that covered it.

  17. 3D by Niris · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I don't understand what the difference is between 3D blu-ray and normal blu-ray HD movies. Do they mean like "holy shit that's popping out of the screen" with 3D glasses support like Avatar or just "Damn that's some nice graphics"

    1. Re:3D by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      They mean "holy shit that's popping out of the screen" with glasses and specialty devices.

      "Damn that's some nice graphics" has no impact on the source media or display device.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    2. Re:3D by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, that's popping out of the screen.

    3. Re:3D by Niris · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Awesome, thanks. I was wondering if they'd come out with some way to release movies like Avatar in 3D soon since most people are saying that's the only way to see it. Good to know.

      on a side note, hooray for being labeled off topic for trying to clarify what the new technology is :P

    4. Re:3D by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The usual term is "stereo" or "stereo-3D." It's been around since shortly after the invention of photography.

      I love stereo-3D myself, and have a collection of it in various forms including an antique Stereo-Realist camera that can take action stills in stereo. It's also quite easy to take stereo stills with any digital camera, providing there's no movement involved in the subject-- just by taking the picture, moving over about a foot, and taking another framed the same (and hopefully, with the same exposure). Viewing can be done with budget viewers from your LCD video monitor, side to side, or using the crosseye technique, etc.

      That said though, I think in this case it's a cheap excuse to try to sell more BluRay players since the market just hasn't been taking off-- HD doesn't get you enough over SD DVD for many people to bother to spend the money (including me). Unfortunately, 3D will get the short-shrift it always does, and when it doesn't explode into an "everybody's gotta have it right now" craze, the producers will tire of spending money in the production for insufficient results. So we'll have a couple of wowzer stereo films (Avatar and one or two others, probably), but not enough to justify converting your entire video system over unless you've got too much money or you're a total gadget geek.

      A "Ted Turner" could start taking old content and producing artificial plane-separated synthetic stereo from existing media, and that might pull it a long for a few more miles, but even then I seriously doubt it'll be enough to carry it along. And it likely won't be quite as easy or as cheap as "colorization" was, at least to do well.

      I'd love to see stereo become mainstream, but we've been down this road before, and I don't see anything new here, just the dollars involved are bigger (which itself doesn't bode well, because for too many people, it's just non-essential)...

      If stereo computer monitors got cheap enough I might get one of those so my 3D modelling work can be done in full stereo, but I don't get paid for that so I'm not willing to spend a whole lot over what a plain-old 2D monitor costs.

      I'd like to see it, I really would, but I just don't expect it to happen. There's just not enough momentum. It looks to me like a last-ditch attempt for a few desperate folks in tinseltown to give the public a reason to pay more for their stuff. It's just not a good enough reason, frankly. And even if we weren't in a recession, and digital entertainment hadn't lost a whole lot of it's value over the last decade due to the glut of content and its distribution, I just don't see it becoming any more than an expensive parlor-trick...

    5. Re:3D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting AC because I spent 4/5 mod points on this thread but I felt I needed to correct a few things here.

      First, stereo computer monitors have gotten to, what I would consider, the "cheap enough" point. First you have the iZ3D monitor from iZ3D.com that runs $300 or about $100 more then the average 22" monitor. I personally have this monitor and even if the technology is not perfect playing Mass Effect 2 in 3D was sweet as hell.

      There is also the Nvidia 3D Vision which runs $600 if you dont already have a 120Hz display ($200 if you do).

      Second, while I agree that there may not be much of a need to watch movies in 3D (with the exception of Avatar and the new Tron movie) there is a need to play games in 3D. That is what makes the idea of the PS3 getting 3D support via firmware so exciting. The first PS3 games to be released will be able to be displayed in 3D and new games can be designed with 3D in mind.

      -Ifandbut

    6. Re:3D by dr00g911 · · Score: 1

      Speaking of expensive parlor tricks...

      About half of the stereo features hitting theaters this year will be last minute planar projection fake conversions in effort to jack up the ticket price. Offshore stereo conversion companies are sprouting up like weeks in the VFX industry currently.

      So, you've got stuff like Up and Avatar that actually start driving demand for theatrical stereo, soon to be followed by an avalanche of headache inducing cashgrab.

      The industry seems intent on sabotaging itself.

      Aside: I'm a VFX artist these days, and I get to work with headsets and stereo monitors on occasion. Save your cash and preview depth with anaglyph glasses for short periods. The tech just isn't there yet for a working "3D" display that is easy enough on the eyes for you to last an entire workday. Maybe soon, but not just yet. But even then, the user won't have a director tweaking inter-occular depth etc to prevent strain.

    7. Re:3D by hazydave · · Score: 1

      I don't really see it that way.

      Rather, this is the typical theater vs. home wars, bumping up to the next level. It's clear that Hollywood, Inc. has discovered that "3D" in films, when used to actually enhance the film (rather as the gimmick it's been in the past) is fairly compelling. More people saw "Avatar" in 3D than normal, and this film is now the highest grossing in history, and the first to pass the $2 billion mark. And that's just box office.

      The 3D thing is really overblown, anyway. It's largely a change in software on the Blu-Ray player, as the upgrades from Sony illustrate. It will work with some of today's TVs as-is, but a 3D aware television may offer better results, as would higher speed interfaces.

      Most people are completely happy with Blu-Ray, and really do appreciate the difference between HD and SD (the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD is greater than the difference between DVD and VHS... and Blu-Ray is growing faster than DVD did at the same point in its evolution). What they're not ready for yet is $250+ for a player. So player sales only grew 67% in 2009 over 2008. Most industry watchers predict the crossover in media sales in 2012 or 2013. Today, Blu-Ray accounts for 10%-30% of media sales, depending on the release. In the last quarter of 2009, Blu-Ray media sales grew by 35% in the USA. DVD sales in the same quarter fell by 17%.

      This is hardly an usual thing, but in fact, exactly what you sign up for when you make things based around computers. It was difficult to grow media formats in a compatible way back in the analog days, but for this, the 3D is just an optional add-on. Older players will just play the 2D version, and 3D-aware players will offer you a choice, or perhaps even only offer that choice in the presence of proper 3D viewing gear.

      Hollywood, Inc. is already moving on. Most of the digital projectors in theaters these days have been 2K format projectors (nominally 2000x1000 pixels), which is essentially just the same as HDTV. They're moving rapidly to shooting in 4K (nominally 4000x2000), and beyond. Some folks in Japan have already shown off a prototype 8K television (nominally 8000x4000... http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/super_hi/index.html). It just never ends.

      Of course, it really does end. You can see 1080p just dandy on a computer monitor... I'm about 2ft away from my dual 1200p monitors here, and I see it fine. But at a normal television viewing distance, you can't tell the difference between 1200p/1080p and 720p. Unless you're Superman, or at least Harvey Birdman. I have a 71" 1080p television in my media room. Most people will see an advantage to 1080p at 10-12 feet from the screen, which is an absolutely reasonable viewing distance, within the THX optimal viewing range, and just a bit short of the SMPTE optimal viewing range (both THX and SMPTE are based on your angle of view).

      To get much out of a 4K screen, I'm going to have to sit closer than ft, or get a very gigantic screen. Of course, when I grew up, my parent's "big screen" TV was a 25" Sears console... that was the largest they ever owned, at least while I was at home. Could be some go larger in the future. But how many people really have room for 100" + screens. Ok, if you're offering, sure, I'll make it fit...

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    8. Re:3D by hazydave · · Score: 1

      Which is of course one reason the PS3 update is expected this summer, rather than now, even if they do have the 3D Blu-Ray stuff working there already. 3D gaming makes perfect sense, anyway... video games are already largely 3D internal, just projected as 2D when rendered. So why not do a stereoscopic projection?

      Of course, Sony will also want to have their 3D shutter glasses for the PS3 available at the same time the software's out. I hate to admit it, but I'll probably be in line for them the day they're out.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
  18. Along these lines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fall of religion and intellectual property will make the DRM in the cable obsolete in only 20 years.

  19. 3D!!! by Temujin_12 · · Score: 2, Funny

    A 3-dimensional player would have been nice. All I have is a 2-dimensional Blu-ray player.

    Figuring out the physics behind how to convert a 3-dimensional Blu-ray disc into 2-dimensional space and back so it could work with my 2-dimensional player was a bit tough, but once you get the hang of it it's not so bad.

    Oh wait.... you're talking about stereoscopic video, not the actual spacial dimensionality of the physical player.

    Sorry.

    --
    Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
    1. Re:3D!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah! You deliberately misconstrued the obvious meaning of the story and took it to a ridiculous but logical conclusion. Brilliant!

    2. Re:3D!!! by shoehornjob · · Score: 0

      Ummm maybe I missed something but how do they expect to put a 3d image on a 2d screen. Call me when they invent the holosuite. Nothing to see here people. Move along.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
  20. This is ridiculous. by AbRASiON · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Which 3D spec is it?
    The tech is incredibly immature right now, there's about 3 different methods of doing 3D - some require glasses, some apparently don't. How is it encoded on the disc, can the disc still contain the regular 2D blu ray movie. Is it the same spec as the other companies? What about the TV guys, is it the same spec there?

    They (not just Sony) are really praying for this 3D thing to take off and cause a whole new run of consumer idiot sales, we aren't falling for it this time, the 1080p fiasco was bad enough (it was never an official HD spec, it was added later) you expect us to sell out 1->30 month old HD TV's for a 3D one when the spec is a complete shambles?
    I think a 'lol, no!' should suffice here. I'm definitely waiting this one well, well out.

    1. Re:This is ridiculous. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      What's going to win is someting like VHS - same old boring standard that didn't really change all that much in 20+ years. It seems like the video industry is trying to be like the computer industry and come out with something newer but incompatible every couple of years and expect that people will throw their old devices away and upgrade. It just won't happen. The majority of people will upgrade when the old devices stop working. Which makes me worried about planned obsolescence creeping into these things so that people are forced to upgrade to the latest junk.

    2. Re:This is ridiculous. by theJML · · Score: 3, Informative

      The thing with the 3D spec's is that it's all in the TV. BluRay's just provide the 3d imaging (left and right frames) it's the TV then projects it, however the hell it wants to... active/passive glasses, polarized fields, stereoscopy, Dolby3D, Real3D, hell, even red-blue or magic eye if that's how the set works.

      Personally, I think the 3D thing is cool, it's finally bringing this stuff into the main stream that's going to make industry focus on ways to make it not suck. And I figure by the time they work that part out, it'll be about time to upgrade my currently 7 year old 1080i CRT to something a bit flatter and bigger without feeling like I didn't get my money's worth out of the current set (and relegating it to another room).

      --
      -=JML=-
    3. Re:This is ridiculous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what 1080p fiasco?

    4. Re:This is ridiculous. by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      The amount of HD TV's which were sold as "HD" but only 720p or only 1080i or only 720p/1080i is ridiculous.
      The standard should've been 1080p full at the beginning.

  21. "support" and "Support" by wfolta · · Score: 1

    Our Verizon DVR doesn't like our Samsung flatscreen. Lots of loss-of-synch's over HDMI, and that's not very unusual. HDMI is sort of like TIFF that way: so many options that it's a wonder any sender and receiver can sync at all. So there's a difference between supporting plugs and basic protocols and actually working well together.

    Fortunately, our PS3 plays Blu-rays flawlessly to the Samsung... so far.

    1. Re:"support" and "Support" by quantumplacet · · Score: 1

      The Verizon DVR problem is really a failure of the manufacturer not a problem with the spec, and it is entirely software. The problem is pretty well documented on various forums, Motorola seems to have no interest in fixing it. See

      http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21921761-HD-FIOSMotorola-Box-vs-Samsung-HDMI-not-Working

      for a lot of links.

    2. Re:"support" and "Support" by quantumplacet · · Score: 1

      actually this thread

      http://www.highdefforum.com/verizon-fios/49608-motorola-hd-dvrs-hdmi-green-screen-problem.html

      is much better

  22. cable boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec?

    Having the media standard and players are nice, but until I know I have a TV that will support a standard (that will be around for more than 2 seconds) is somewhat important as well.

    I'm more interested in cable boxes supporting HDMI (with CEC).

    I still have old school analog cable, and so I can connect the coax directly into my TV and only have to deal with one remote for channels and volume.

    For crying out loud, this is the century of the fruit bat! Why can't we have a single remote control for channel surfing.

    1. Re:cable boxes by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      For crying out loud, this is the century of the fruit bat! Why can't we have a single remote control for channel surfing.

      You can
      You don't even need one as good as that though, you can buy Universal Remotes at most dollar-stores and convenience stores nowadays.

  23. What about the media? by RoboRay · · Score: 2, Funny

    If 2D BluRay comes on a flat disc, does 3D BluRay come on a sphere?

  24. Maybe virtual reality glasses? by dindi · · Score: 1

    I had my nvidia shutters a long time ago (10 years or so), and while it was really fun I do not see myself getting into this new tv new glasses thing.

    I would expect to have an affordable at least 720p (1280x720?) glasses (per eye) tiny displays with a light helmet/head mount by now, but no... most headsets are still 640x480 or 800x600 .... 1024 costs a lot more..... Just do not get it......

    Technology is there and I think they would sell too......maybe I am just part of a crazy crowd who thinks that others would pay for such a thing.... then again, I am not the movie goer, a movie is not a social event in my dictionary....

    1. Re:Maybe virtual reality glasses? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Try this.

      Take a sheet of paper with printing on it and place it in front of one of your eyes at normal glasses-distance.

      If you are 30+ years old the odds are very good that you cant focus on the print at all, even if you do not need to wear glasses.

      So the solution is some sort of individually-tailored-to-the-person glasses to aid in viewing the hypothetical goggles of yours. Compared with the mass production of one-size-fits-all shutter glasses or polarized lenses, its no contest.

      I predict that most 3D systems will be the polarized variety, not just because the glasses are really really inexpensive compared to shutters, but also because its not terribly difficult to manufacture displays that have alternating vertical-stripe or checker-board polarization.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Maybe virtual reality glasses? by hazydave · · Score: 1

      Everyone's doing LCD shutter glasses right now, simply because the TV doesn't really need to know anything about 3D.. it's a private agreement between your media player and your eyes, just as 16:9 vs. 4:3 was with DVD (eg, the analog TV doesn't have a clue about the format... well, maybe some PAL TVs get the 16:9/4:3 flag sent via SCART, but usually, the TV didn't know).

      Polarization is one great way to get away from active glasses. This is a piece of cake to do very nicely with a DLP projection TV, exactly as it's done in the theaters (since they're mostly using DLP projectors for 3D films). Linear polarization is a fail in the theater and a big fail at home... people sometimes watch TV lying down. But circular polarization, such as used in the RealD system you find in theaters, is easy to build into a DLP TV. At which point, your 3D glasses are basically just sunglasses.... pretty established cheap tech, available as prescription or clip-ons for the nearsighted in the crowd.

      But sadly, this is probably not going to happen. Only Mitsubishi is still making DLPs or any other microdisplay-driven TV... Sony, Samsung, JVC, and maybe others have gone for the flat panel craze. And given the various issues with plasma (grey-blacks, relatively heinous power consumption, burn-in and all the other phosphor-based issues we know and love from the CRT days), this leaves LCD. Which is already using polarization (watch any LCD screen with a pair of polarized shades on.. very amusing for a few minutes). So this easy 3D add-on to already pretty low cost, high quality display technology is not likely to happen, simply because enough people get all gooey over a TV that can hang on the wall. Yeesh!

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    3. Re:Maybe virtual reality glasses? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Linear polarization is a fail in the theater

      You'll have to explain that to the people who saw Avatar in IMAX 3D (including myself). Worked fine, but yeah I had to watch my head tilt...

      DLP rear-projections were actually the first non-CRT stereoscopic TVs with active LCD shutter glasses, because they actually paint every frame with two sequential fields (think black and white squares on the checkerboard) to reduce the resolution needed of the DLP chip. The two fields were utilized for left and right eye views. The raster provided to the set had the left eye view in the "white squares", right eye view in the "black squares", with the LCD shutter glasses shutting the right eye during the left eye view field, and the shutting the left eye during the right eye view field.

      There are circularly-polarized video displays based on LCDs available, such as the Hyundai IT S465D.

    4. Re:Maybe virtual reality glasses? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You'll have to explain that to the people who saw Avatar in IMAX 3D (including myself). Worked fine, but yeah I had to watch my head tilt...

      I found being required to sit up straight for nearly three hours a major downside of the experience. And the frame problems of IMAX just seemed to be exacerbated in 3D, I'm not sure why that it, but the flicker was pretty terrible at times.

      The bigger problem though was the fixed inter-ocular distance. My eyes strained in a bit, my daughter's (she's 6) had to accommodate way outside her normal range, and she wound up having to just alternate eyes for much of the movie.

      Theatre 3D has to be a compromise, so personal 3D is likely to be the end-game. If Microvision ever makes it to market with a real product and your software is fast enough you can give the viewer a perfect 3D experience. I hate to say it, but BTTF2 probably got this right.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  25. PS3... by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

    Hmmm... No mention of the PS3. Time to sell?

    --
    "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
  26. Next Big Thing by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

    A few Years ago, I bought a large screen TV - Rear projection. At the time, I was not worried about HD as there was no HD content available for broadcast and the BluRay HDDVD battle (I can hardly call it a war) had not begun. It did have 1080i which I later found out was a HD spec. Cool I thought. I am ready for when this starts happening. Then a few months later, I hear very little about 1080i and lots about this 1080p stuff. Then start to hear I hear HDMI input. This monster box has coxial, Svideo, component and composite. So in theory, I have a nice large screen television that is HD capable, but no way of utilising this function. Thank you Panasonic. Just last year I bought myself a bigger, Plasma screen - This time 1080p with many HDMI inputs and I have been enjoying HD - However, Damned if I am going to buy - yet another - high end Television (there is no way I am going smaller) in the next few years only to be obsoleted so quickly.

    --
    . . .gone when the morning comes
    1. Re:Next Big Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not relevant anymore, but you could have sent a 1080i/720p signal over component from a PC or game console. I had one of those mammoth rear-projection CRTs (56") myself. Kept it til it died, then got a new 55" LG 240Hz LED.

  27. Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a boring troll... please cut your losses and just stop posting.

  28. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How have we been able to laugh 3d movies out of our lives for fifty goddamn years or so now and now all of a sudden it's the biggest fucking thing ever?

    Either we have been somehow conditioned to accept without question every new goddamn pile of shit technology that has come down in the last few years (LCDs, Blu-Ray, Wii, XBox 360 with its horribly defective hardware, CFL, etc), or we have gotten a LOT less intelligent in that time. Maybe a little of both.

    Wake up, people. Holy fuck.

  29. Remember when 3D used to mean... by Snaller · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remember when 3D used to mean they had two dimensions and a story!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Remember when 3D used to mean... by Korbeau · · Score: 1

      A story with double-D, I could digg it :)

    2. Re:Remember when 3D used to mean... by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 1

      The story has been replaced with special effect. If you want a story you are going to have to buy the new 4D TVs next year. Plot twist 5D TVs will follow in 2012.

    3. Re:Remember when 3D used to mean... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Remember when 3D used to mean they had two dimensions and a story!

      You're quite right. Photographs are 2D. TV and Movies are 3D. Avatar was 4D.

      I'm simply astonished the marketdroids haven't picked up on this yet.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  30. Unfortunately by Torodung · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, the Wonka bar is still very, very small. Ah well.

    --
    Toro

  31. So, tell me, Sony by Khyber · · Score: 1

    You going to give us glasses for this? I doubt I can use the RealD polarized glasses with my LCD TV.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:So, tell me, Sony by darthnoodles · · Score: 1

      Umm...you think you'll be able to use your LCD TV with this to get a 3D image? Your TV will also have to be a new 3D model, there are a few of them for sale now I believe. Then the type of glasses you use (shutters vs. polarised) will depend on the TV you bought.

    2. Re:So, tell me, Sony by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      Or it creates a market for intermediate converters which take the 3D output of the player and convert it to any of:

      Split-screen (left picture on the left, right on right)
      Split-screen cross-eyed (for apparatus-free viewing)
      Anaglyph (to match whatever color glasses you have around)
      Interlaced to match shutter-glasses (which will have to be timed to the converter)
      Split into two streams for dual-projection (polarized) or LCD glasses

      The options are endless. If they can just do auto-anaglyph, with the option to set the colors, the experience would be very satisfying with existing TVs. Coraline worked really well, using blue/yellow I think, but it was designed to work that way. Other movies might require different colors, but the concept is the same.

      Something like MythTV or VLC might even include this option without requiring a hardware converter.

  32. Panasonic have it first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems Panasonic beats Sony for actually making the 3D TV and 3D Blu-ray player recorder available for consumers first.

    The Active Shutter 3D glasses is quite cool.

    http://slashdot.org/submission/1170610/Panasonic-Full-HD-3D-TV-and-Blu-ray-3D-recorder

  33. 3D is annoying by Scarumanga · · Score: 1

    I don't know about anyone else, but I do NOT want to wear any kind of glasses just to watch TV, especially shaded glasses. I would prefer to see them use existing technology to make 3DTV's that require no glasses at all. I have a fine tuned vision that i am used to, why obstruct my vision with lame shutter glasses?

    1. Re:3D is annoying by Scarumanga · · Score: 1

      Here is a link to the technology in action, sharp is already making notebooks with 3D Displays that require NO GLASSES. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-978499.html Sorry but 3D shutter glasses have just become obsolete

    2. Re:3D is annoying by Scarumanga · · Score: 1

      I should also note, that article is from 2003....so yeah there you have it. I think we should boycott current 3DTV's and force the market to develop something that consumers really want.

  34. No thank you by tomzyk · · Score: 1

    Only 3D? No thanks.
    I had one of those back in the day. I saw it only for a split second and it was gone.
    I'm currently holding out until they make a 4 dimensional one... which, quite frankly, they should have made in the first place!

    --
    Karma: NaN
  35. 3D is it like Talkies? by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

    Every time they mention 3D TV I think to myself: "DO NOT WANT!!!"

    Then I think to myself, gee am I some old curmudgeon that would have been against talkies one the big screen clinging to my black and white TV when color TV's came out?

    I hate the idea of having to wear special glasses to watch my TV. I think this new move to 3D TV is a novelty that will wear off, but it won't because it is easier for companies to lock down 3D because of the larger size and proprietary equipment.

    Am I just not keeping up with the times? Have I finally gotten to the point where I'm to old for technology? Geez, I'm only 30!

  36. What about component video? by VanessaE · · Score: 1

    I went and looked at BluRay players the other day, and of the 5 sold at the store I was at, none could up-scale DVD's via component video (all demanded HDMI). I got the impression from that, that none of them could do High Def *at all* via component video, let alone 3D video, and I refuse to support the HDMI "standard".