PS3 To Gain Support For 3-D Movies On Blu-Ray and YouTube

An anonymous reader writes with news that Sony is planning a firmware update for the PS3 to enable 3-D playback from Blu-ray movies and YouTube. The update is scheduled for September, and support for 3-D photos will come later. Sony's Kaz Hirai spoke recently about how the PS3 was designed with these kinds of upgrades in mind. "Given how fast technology turns over now, we knew going in that we had to pack a lot of horsepower into the PS3. Four years ago — when you look at the console's power and its retail price — a lot of people were critical with the fact that there was so much packed under the hood. Now we're especially pleased to be introducing things like Move and 3-D gaming because we're able to show tangibly why we released the PS3 with the power it has, and why it makes so much sense to future proof a console." Sony also updated its PS3 Terms of Service to warn against too much 3-D viewing.

Comments

More 3-D madness.

[Yamata no Orochi]

Why this push for everything to be 3-D? It was a stupid novelty years ago, and its no less stupid now.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[betterunixthanunix]

At least they are trying to do something to make paying to see the movie worthwhile. They could just focus on bankrupting college students as a business, and not even bother to create an incentive to go to the theaters.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[commodore64_love]

Electronic companies want to continue the economic boom they experienced with the analog/SDTV to digital/HDTV transition. Now that it's complete, they need a new carrot to dangle in front of consumers, and they think 3DTV is it.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[c0lo]

Now we're especially pleased... because we're able to show tangibly why we released the PS3 with the power it has

Sony also updated its PS3 Terms of Service to warn against too much 3-D viewing

Sort of saying: "We are sooo pleased we are now able to sell you something that will harm you, without investing any further", eh?

Re:More 3-D madness.

[SquarePixel]

And it was not stupid, just old and bad technology before. He is probably thinking the old red-blue glasses. 3D viewing has improved a lot in the recent years, and for example gives a totally new feeling with games. If you have tried Left 4 Dead with NVidia's 3D Vision Kit and a 120hz 3D capable monitor, you know what I'm talking about (it is a lot scarier too).

It really gives a completely new feeling, when done right, and remember this is all along the path for technology that can render the environment completely and realistically around us, with a complete feeling of "being there".

Re:More 3-D madness.

[NoPantsJim]

I think at the very least part of it has to do with piracy. I remember years ago when hddvd and bluray were first hitting the shelves they were heralded as the end of piracy. The logic was no one would be able to pirate a movie that clocks in at 40-50 gigs. Of course, thanks to h.264 and other codecs, downloading 1080p copies of movies is pretty trivial.

I suspect that studio execs are sitting around assuming no one will be able to figure out how to pirate 3-d movies. Of course, there are probably people much much smarter than they are trying to figure out how.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they could, you know, make some good movies...

Re:More 3-D madness.

[jagsta]

I'm assuming from your comment you haven't sampled what gaming in 3D looks and feels like? I've only been able to watch in game footage from a couple of the demo titles (Motorstorm, Super Stardust HD and WipeoutHD) so far, but I can say that for both of the racing type games the effect is excellent and for me at least really contributed to the level of immersion. I think sports titles, and FPS really will be enhanced by this. I personally am not so enthusiastic about the 3D TVs (casual viewing in 3D isn't really going to work I think), but I can't wait for the 3D projectors to be launched, i'll be upgrading my projector as soon as a good model which is 3D capable is available.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[commodore64_love]

It still gives me a headache. When I went to see Journey t the Center of the Earth, I had to put those stupid 3D shades over my regular glasses and everything looked distorted - like watching through a prism.

I removed my glasses and just put the 3D shades on directly, and it still didn't look right. By the time the movie was over I didn't feel good at all - the same effect as reading a book nonstop for 16 hours, but the movie was only 2 hours long. I've never had that problem with the old red/blue technology.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Yvan256]

Why are people still hanging to 3D with glasses? Am I the only one who say those new 3D TVs which did NOT require any glasses?

Re:More 3-D madness.

[pnewhook]

The resolution and viewing angle is not nearly as good. The best 3D to date is with active shutter glasses.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[elrous0]

If (customersPayMore) Sony += money;

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Joe Tie.]

It still gives me a headache.

And putting pressure on the remains of my foot hurts. Congrats, like me you're a cripple. The main difference is that I don't begrudge people who can walk from enjoying it. Be glad it's such a minor disability, could be a whole lot worse than having some movies be unavailable.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[KnownIssues]

Normally, I'd joke that you're asking a rhetorical question, but in this case I have to agree. This makes no sense to me either. It made sense for movie theaters to push 3D, because they are in constant competition with home theaters to provide a "unique" experience that will convince you that you should leave your home for two hours to spend $12 to watch a movie while eating your $6 bag of popcorn and drink your $5 soda.

It would also make sense if they had pushed 3D at the end of the blu-ray lifecycle because I suspect with blu-ray, we're getting close to the "it's good" level where people won't be as tempted to replace their entire library with the lastest medium.

Maybe it is as has been said by others here, driven by TV manufacturers who are greedy to reproduce the same rush of income they had from HD.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you are defective doesn't mean everyone else is.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[nedlohs]

Because everyone who wants (and can reasonably afford, or has a credit card) an HDTV already has one.

Sony, etc would like some more money and hence some reason for those people to buy a new TV.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[somersault]

3D really does not contribute in any way to a movie being "worthwhile" after you get over the novelty. I used to watch every 3D movie that came out when they were all the decent 3D rendered Pixar types, but these days there are plenty of crappy dumb horror movies and 3D stadium experience type ones that I don't consider worth it. Especially since I have an "Unlimited" card where I can see as many movies as I want a month for a flat rate.. except for the 3D ones which I now have to pay extra per movie, even if I bring my own glasses.. wtf?

This has actually made me choose 2D over 3D at times, once you are absorbed in the film you tend to not really notice the difference.. well, apart from the odd scene where something gets pointed toward the camera and you can tell this is the point where people would giggle and gasp if the movie were 3D.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Animaether]

Why this push for everything to be 3-D? It was a stupid novelty years ago, and its no less stupid now.

*shakes his cane*

sonny, my computer only has two speakers attached to it - I don't know why you youngsters insisted on this, this.. surrounding sound.. it was a stupid novelty when I was a kid, and it's no less stupid now! Now get offa my lawn!

Except... I can still watch the movie with either its included stereo track or the mix produced from the surround tracks. Why would I complain at all?

So it is with (stereoscopic) 3D as well - don't like it? Don't watch it - there's certainly zero -technical- reason you can't watch just the left view, just the right view, or a per-scene decision (not specced, afaik) of which view to take. And you can do this on that 20" CRT you picked up in 1992 that only takes composite input, rather than having to endure HD video and suffering the consequences.

In other words.. what is your complaint about, exactly? How is this push for 3D affecting you?

Why this push for everything to be 3-D?

Part money (see other replies), part because they can, part because they should - this goes mostly for movies.. it's much easier to start with a 3D pipeline than trying to make a 2D movie 3D - and part because consumers want it; when people themselves are getting 3D TVs / displays, it follows naturally that they might want to take 3D pictures - thus SONY's new batch of P&S cameras doing the stereo thing as part of its panorama sweep mode and other manufacturers coming out with cameras with 2 lenses, for example. It may be one of those things where a product is made that people didn't even know they wanted, but such it is.

It was a stupid novelty years ago, and its no less stupid now.

I disagree.. not with the stupid novelty part so much - that's a subjective thing; I've always rather enjoyed stereoscopic content and am a stereoscopic photography amateur myself (2 separate, synced, cameras for greater depth perception control) - but with the idea that it's no less stupid.

It was a lot more stupid in the 80's as there was no reasonable viewing medium outside of the theater - and very often that was a special theater as well. The only way to view at home was with red/green, red/blue, orange/cyan, etc. filter glasses. That was a heck of a lot more stupid than the full color experience you can have in the home now with shutter / polarized glasses or even lenticular / parallax barrier displays. The only thing that came close were the ViewMaster reels - and those were still images with relatively poor resolution, rather than animated content - let alone interactive content.

3D isn't a short-lived fad - it may be a niche feature (just like surround sound), and you may not be a part of the group who enjoys that particular niche feature, but to say it's no less stupid now than it was years ago would be ignoring the vast technical improvements and consumer-level availability that exists during this current push which were all but non-existent during any previous pushes.
Whether it will be a longer-term fad if it turns out consumer uptake does end up on the low side - most likely due to the "I don't want to wear 'funny' glasses" effect - is another matter. Part of me hopes it will be - perhaps they'll re-focus their efforts on True HDR displays instead ;)

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Abcd1234]

They could just focus on bankrupting college students as a business, and not even bother to create an incentive to go to the theaters.

Well, yeah, or they could, like, make decent movies.

But I suppose that's too much to ask. Better to just make Dances with Wolves IN THREE DEE!

Re:More 3-D madness.

[somersault]

What exactly is there to "figure out" about copying a 3D blu-ray over a normal blu-ray?

At least at first there probably won't be that many pirated 3D movies, because to get the equipment to view it you actually need to have money, and people who have money don't tend to mooch so much stuff as students and kids. When I was a student I downloaded a few movies, now I just buy everything.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[TexVex]

The best 3D to date is with active shutter glasses.

No, the best 3D is with circularly polarized light (which works even if you tilt the glasses off vertical, unlike linearly polarized systems). The glasses are super cheap plastic. There is no need to blank each eye in turn for half of each frame, so there is a lot less flicker. (And flicker sensitivity isn't so much a matter of framerate but of how much of each frame is black; stereoscopic systems require 50% blankness.)

I know LCD displays are all linearly polarized. Can they be made circularly polarized instead, with rows or columns alternating polarity?

I know movie theatre screens can reflect circularly polarized light without changing the polarization, so it can work with projection home theater. But, what about DLP displays? Can the screens pass circularly polarized light with polarization intact?

I for one am not interested in home 3D that uses shutter glasses, but I'd definitely be interested in one that uses polarization.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[NoPantsJim]

"What exactly is there to "figure out" about copying a 3D blu-ray over a normal blu-ray?"

I don't know. I'm not an expert in the field. That's why I made no assumptions about it being as easy as ripping a Blu-Ray movie.

"When I was a student I downloaded a few movies, now I just buy everything."

Same here, but I still like to buy my movies, and then rip them to a digital format for use with XBMC and the Boxee Box when it finally hits the shelves. I guess one of my big worries about the 3D BS is that movies, that would otherwise be quite good, could be poorly done just for the sake of a good 3D experience.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[pushing-robot]

3D video is nothing more than two 2D videos which alternate every other frame. It's trivial to create or decode; in fact, there are several ways you can do it:

• Put the left and right frames next to each other into one big video frame, or...
• Interleave the left and right frames into one stream with twice the frame rate, or...
• Multiplex the two streams into one file, or...
• Store the streams as two separate files.

You can actually encode and watch 3D video today, if you have the hardware. The only reasons you're not seeing tons of pirated 3D video is because the hardware is still relatively rare, the files are naturally larger than 2D versions, and player software makers (VideoLAN et al.) haven't agreed on which particular method listed above to standardize. As soon as there's a common format that works in popular players, pirated 3D video will be all over the place.

But any studio execs who thought 3D video would somehow end piracy would have to be complete idiots.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Yamata no Orochi]

I'm sorry I didn't include it with my original post, but as I mentioned in another, all the movies I've wanted to see recently have been exclusively in 3-D.

So it is with (stereoscopic) 3D as well - don't like it? Don't watch it - there's certainly zero -technical- reason you can't watch just the left view, just the right view, or a per-scene decision (not specced, afaik) of which view to take.

This is not an option afforded to me at the box office. It's wear the uncomfortable glasses to watch the movie with stupid, transparent 3-D effects and an overall dulled picture, or watch it without and enjoy ridiculous, unviewable blur.

It's not that I mind the advancement of technology, but I would prefer it remain optional; a fork, rather than the only path forward, much like your surround sound example.

Additionally, while it may improve, I don't think it's even fair to compare 3-D to surround sound, as there aren't nearly as many arguments regarding the ways in which surround sound degrades the overall experience, whereas there are with 3-D (dulled picture, ghosty 3D-ified images, headaches).

Re:More 3-D madness.

[NoPantsJim]

Thanks for clearing that up. Sounds like a speedbump, not an actual blockade.

"But any studio execs who thought 3D video would somehow end piracy would have to be complete idiots."

Who says they aren't complete idiots?

Re:More 3-D madness.

[robthebloke]

...... and the new tech still suffers from the exact same problems as the old tech, motion sickness. You are forced into focussing into a single point in the image, at a specified depth, by the director / cinematographer. Now if you can show me 3D technology that tracks the motion of my eyes, focusses the images correctly at the point where my eyes are trying to look at, then maybe, just maybe, I wont vomit on the people in front of me next time I go to the cinema to watch a 3D film.....

Re:More 3-D madness.

[commodore64_love]

Given I can see everything else perfectly, including the mosquitoes, macroblocking, and other digital artifacts that most people can not perceive, I doubt the problem is in my eyesight. More likely there's a flaw in the technology, or else just that one theater (not adjusted properly).

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Aphoxema]

Why this push for everything to be 3-D? It was a stupid novelty years ago, and its no less stupid now.

Some gimmicks live longer than others. Some are undead monsters from the depths of Hell who, despite the attempts of the righteous, will always return, invincible. Some evils are less corrupting when embraced.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[pnewhook]

There is no need to blank each eye in turn for half of each frame, so there is a lot less flicker. (And flicker sensitivity isn't so much a matter of framerate but of how much of each frame is black; stereoscopic systems require 50% blankness.)

I disagree. At 60Hz each eye (120Hz total), there is no perceivable flicker at all on active glasses. Your brain stitches everything together.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[robthebloke]

So it is with (stereoscopic) 3D as well - don't like it? Don't watch it - there's certainly zero -technical- reason you can't watch just the left view, just the right view, or a per-scene decision (not specced, afaik) of which view to take.

No, but there are some serious artistic reasons why you wouldn't want to do that. The left and right video streams will be skewed to one side - rather than centred on the image that the original cinematographer was looking at through his/her viewfinder. I really don't see the merit in viewing an entire film that was shot correctly using the rule of thirds, for that to become a film adhering to a rule of four fiths.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[pnewhook]

I know movie theatre screens can reflect circularly polarized light without changing the polarization, so it can work with projection home theater.

You actually need TWO projectors, each with a polarizing filter (90deg out of phase with the other). This makes such a system expensive and can only be used with projectors, not LCD or LED systems.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[jitterman]

They could also try to release honest-to-goodness original, quality films, too. No gimmicks required.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, if it works for majority of the people, then the problem is in you.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[jagsta]

LG produce a polarised LED TV for 3D viewing with polarised glasses at a reduced resolution, normal 2D sources can be displayed at full HD resolution.

Since the glasses are polarised, they are very lightweight in comparison to the active shutter glasses and are 1/100 the cost.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Charliemopps]

A better carrot would be to increase the frame rate movies are recorded at. Ever seen video shot at 100 fps? It's like looking through a window. I'd pay for that. 3D is just a joke.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[LtGordon]

...I have an "Unlimited" card where I can see as many movies as I want a month for a flat rate.. except for the 3D ones which I now have to pay extra per movie, even if I bring my own glasses.. wtf?

As a guy who worked in the business, it's because:

• Movie prices are effectively set by the distributors, not the theater.
• 3D is considered to be a "premium experience", and thus costs more than the standard 2D version of the same film, which you can still see for the standard price.
• In order to display movies in 3D, movie theaters typically have to invest in new equipment that far exceeds the simple cost of 3D glasses. Even if every movie-goer brought their own glasses, the ticket price still has to reflect the additional investment in production, distribution, and performance.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[LtGordon]

They do make some decent movies. But they also produce a ton of crap designed solely to make money. The problem isn't that they make it, it's that consumers continue to pay to see the terrible movies. If people quit watching terrible movies, there would be no money to be made in producing one. Every month or so we get another variation on the ( talking animal / animal is actually a secret agent / The Rock has a child and turns out to be a sweet guy after all ). You know why? Because kids see the ads and go crazy and demand that their parents take them to see it. Kids don't care about plot, or dialogue, or really anything other than cute/"awesome". Parents will yield to their want, and Hollywood will continue to take advantage.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Arathrael]

Zalman make 3D LCD displays that use circular polarization (using horizontal interlacing). You can use the same cheap light glasses that cinemas provide with them.

I have one myself - http://www.zalman.com/ENG/product/Product_Read.asp?idx=384 - and it works, but there are quite a few limitations. Obviously there's the consequences you'd expect from horizontal interlacing, less resolution to each eye. For PC gaming the Nvidia drivers are pretty good, but, they only work with the earlier Zalman monitor. Zalman didn't cough up the cash to Nvidia for them to continue support, so even though the Nvidia drivers are quite capable of supporting the newer Zalman monitors, they won't (although unofficially, it is possible to get them to work with a bit of hackery). Otherwise there are 3rd party drivers (http://www.iz3d.com/ for example) which have their own issues, e.g. variable quality and being detected by PunkBuster as a hack.

There's also quite extreme limitations on the vertical viewing angle for 3D, a 10-12 degree range. Move your head up or down out of that and the image splits.

As for the PS3, it won't detect this monitor as being 3D enabled at the moment. It relies entirely on automatic detection, there's apparently no way to manually configure it, so if it doesn't detect the display as 3D, that's it, no 3D for you. I'm not sure the PS3 even supports horizontally interlaced 3D output at the moment either.

I wouldn't really recommend it at the moment. It does work, the effect is great with the Nvidia drivers, and it is a bit cheaper than active shutter glasses solutions, but I expect (hope?) the technology to improve quite rapidly over the next year or so, so I'd hold off going down this route at the moment (if I didn't already have one).

Re:More 3-D madness.

[pnewhook]

Yes, the horizontal resolution is halved with this method. As I said, the best 3D solution to date is with active shutter glasses.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[somersault]

I'm aware of the last one, but still, cinema ticket prices have pretty much doubled in the last 10 years without any corresponding rise in value, and that's before you take into account the 3D tax.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[h4rr4r]

Maybe for you, some of us see the flicker.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[somersault]

I didn't say that they should stay flat, I just don't think they really make films any more "worthwhile". Even highly polished with 7.1 surround and 3D, a shitty movie is still a turd.

I welcome 3D and may even buy a 3D TV in the next couple of years, but I still resent any movie where the only real selling point is that it's "3D woo watch it, you can really perceive the depth!!!!".

Re:More 3-D madness.

[lemur3]

I've never had that problem with the old red/blue technology.

the problem with 3D Anaglyphs is that the cyan/red filter gets corrected by your eyes after extended use.

The glasses only allow Red into the left eye so your brain compensates by trying to add blue.... and same for the other eye.

So you'd likely still have room for a complaint with some people, because instead of a headache you see Cyan and Red in your vision even with the glasses off!! (except that the colors are reversed from what the glasses were)

Try it out sometime....... look at some 3D images with 3D glasses for 20 minutes without taking them off. Take the glasses off and close one eye, you'll see the room is blue in the eye that had the red filter over it and red for the eye with the blue filter. It is quite disarming !! and FUN!

Re:More 3-D madness.

[pnewhook]

You'll see flicker if you are not running at 120Hz, if the frame rate staggers on your display, or if you are lighting your room with 60Hz fluorescents or compact fluorescents. Barring hardware problems you will see no flicker. Hate to break it to you but you do not have super vision.

It's like your phone system. Modern phones cram something like 10 simultaneous calls on a single line, which means what you are hearing is 90% silence - but your brain stitches it together so it seems continuous.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[TheSync]

any studio execs who thought 3D video would somehow end piracy would have to be complete idiots.

I think the theory is that it would end camcordering, which is true in the sense that a 2d camcorder cannot get a good recording of a 3D movie/TV show because of blurriness, nor could it possibly record a 3D image.

Unfortunately, it was unexpected that there would be inexpensive stereoscopic consumer cameras on the market so soon, and yes, the interocular spacing of the lenses on one of those cameras allows you to put glasses on the front of it...

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Khyber]

"Barring hardware problems you will see no flicker. Hate to break it to you but you do not have super vision. "

Too bad you failed to realize human vision is around 72Hz and not 60Hz, so your entire above statement is pure bullshit, or you're the defective one.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[pnewhook]

Too bad you failed to realize human vision is around 72Hz and not 60Hz, so your entire above statement is pure bullshit, or you're the defective one.

Really? 24Hz movie theaters must be unwatchable to you then.

30Hz is the scientifically accepted threshold. Some people can detect 60Hz when there is another 60Hz source in the room (like a fluorescent light)., That is the *sole* reason CRTs moved above 60Hz.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Khyber]

"24Hz movie theaters must be unwatchable to you then. "

Absolutely unacceptable, in fact, and has been since I was a child.

And I can still see electron beam scanning refresh even on a 72hZ refresh on a CRT.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[pnewhook]

Interesting. Since you've never seen a movie, Darth Vader is Luke's father.

I assume you can see the 60Hz LCD refresh rate too?

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Xarin]

I know movie theatre screens can reflect circularly polarized light without changing the polarization, so it can work with projection home theater. But, what about DLP displays? Can the screens pass circularly polarized light with polarization intact?

IMAX theatres use DLP for 3D so it should work.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[danieltdp]

Cmon, you almost asked to walk directly into the scene and talk to the characters. This is no holodeck yet!

Re:More 3-D madness.

[TheLink]

They're not unwatchable. But 24fps is really crappy. Especially when the scene changes a lot, either everything is blurred and smeared (if they motion-blur stuff), or you see stuff "rippling" down.

I'd like to see evidence of your "scientifically accepted threshold".

Try this: move your hand quickly in front of a 60Hz light source. Move your hand quickly in sunlight. Do you see a difference in the movement images? I do and I bet many others do too. Your hand just doesn't look like it's moving as smoothly when lit at 60Hz. There are gaps in the images.

In contrast, if the light source was "strobing" at a much higher rate, say 20000Hz, you probably would not see a significant difference when compared with sunlight. The image of your moving hand would be updating at 20000 times a second. The gaps would be imperceptible.

Therefore 60 frames per second is far from a sufficient refresh rate for reproducing perfectly smooth and steady motion video for human eyes. I suspect you can even see the difference for 120Hz (normal fluorescent lighting powered by 60Hz AC lights at this rate).

Eyes don't work like digital cameras. Whether you can easily detect 60Hz also depends on the contrast between the frames and the stuff in the frames, and whether it goes to black or not. LCDs tend to smear stuff more than CRTs, and CRTs tend to go to black between refreshes by the electron beam. Many people can easily tell the difference between a CRT monitor running at 85Hz and one running at 70Hz. One is just a lot more "solid". 60Hz flickers far more perceptibly.

Lastly, many only have to look off to the side of the screen and their peripheral vision will tell them if the image flickers. Human peripheral vision is usually more sensitive to quick motion than the central vision.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Chowderbags]

It's too soon and the technology is too shitty. You're not going to convince people to switch from good 40-60 inch flat screens that they just bought a few years ago (that they probably still haven't payed off, but that's another issue) to pseudo 3d screens where they have to wear special glasses and sit at one particular angle to get the right effect (assuming that the reality around them doesn't ruin it anyway). Then again, I can't see 3d anyway, so all it is to me is someone asking me to pay a fuckton more for shit I can't use.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[cbreaker]

Because 3D is fucking awesome.

The few PS3 games available in 3D look fucking awesome. The two movies I have look fucking awesome.

We see everything in real life in 3D. We have two ears, so stereo was natural. We have two eyes, so 3D video is also natural. It's great!

The only people I see complaining about it are A) Complainiacs that will never be happy with anything or B) Too poor to ever afford it.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[cbreaker]

There's a number of non-serious illnesses that can cause 3D to either not work for you, or give you adverse effects. Eye problems such as astigmatism or lazy eye can prevent you from being able to see 3D properly, or can give you extra eye strain.

I can watch 3D on my new TV for several hours playing games and watching movies and I've have zero problems. It's not the technology, the tech works. It just doesn't work great for everyone, because of any number of medical issues.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[cbreaker]

I'm not disagreeing with you - you can't see the flicker - IF you're looking at the TV. When my glasses are active, you can see a little bit of flicker if you look outside the window on a sunny day. Indoor lights, you don't see flicker.

So, unless someone is complaining about flicker when looking at things NOT on the TV screen, they're full of shit if they say they can see any flicker with a new 3D TV and shudder glasses.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[cbreaker]

Well, Active Matrix LCD screens don't refresh the entire screen like that. There's a capacitor for each pixel which keeps the pixel lit or not lit or whatever. The refresh on an LCD is how quickly it can respond to changes in a pixel, as well as the input signal. LCD screens don't flicker.

However, I can't look at a CRT monitor at 60hz. It burns my brain. 72hz is fine. But, I don't notice any flicker with my 3d TV and glasses, and the flicker at the movies doesn't bother me. You're not watching a movie with the screen 12 inches from your eyes.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[cbreaker]

There's a difference between "detecting" and letting it bother you. I can see flicker at the movies, and I can see a tiny bit of flicker on my Plasma TV (incidentally, not when watching 3D stuff) but they just don't bother me. I can't stare at a 60hz CRT computer screen for long, but that's a foot away from your eyes.

So, I don't see what the problem is. 60hz is very smooth video, and the new 3D TV's are very good. If you want to reject such awesome things because you "notice" something, it's your loss dude.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[cbreaker]

You've obviously never put on any of the new shudder glasses. They are lighter than my sunglasses. They use a 2035 or 2025 battery. They last for 50 - 80 hours on a single button cell battery.

You're making an argument here when none should exist. Shudder glasses are really good now a days. And the new 3D stuff with shudder glasses is very high refresh. It works very well!

You should just try it sometime. There's nothing wrong with shudder glasses.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[cbreaker]

I just got a Samsung 63" Plasma TV that's 3D enabled (shudder based) for $3400 at Best Buy. I can't imagine Zalman's screens being any more reasonably priced than that, and this TV is HDMI 1.3 and detected as a 3D display. No hackery required. TV Switches into 3D mode automatically.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[cbreaker]

Sorry you can't watch 3D stuff without getting sick. 99% of us can. Hey, I can't play basket ball for shit, so I guess it's even huh?

Re:More 3-D madness.

[cbreaker]

And yet, even if a movie is $20 to see, it's still cheaper than two hours at the bar, and probably more entertaining.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[cbreaker]

And I agree with them. 3D stuff is awesome. 3D games look awesome. 3D movies look awesome.

Sorry, but I love the 3D stuff, even if you want to be all alternative and say it's no good to be different. The rest of us will enjoy the fuck out of it and you can keep watching your B&W TV because that's "pure TV" huh?

Re:More 3-D madness.

[somersault]

Can't argue with that. Then again, pretty much anything in life is cheaper than drinking, and more entertaining if you don't count the fact that almost anything is entertaining when you're drunk.

Thankfully I get unlimited cinema for ~£14 a month - which crazily is actually less than the price of two adult tickets.. it will be a sad day when they finally stop that scheme.. then again they must be making a profit on it or they'd have stopped it a year or two back. Initially when I got the card I actually started thinking that the prices for food at the cinema were bearable when I took into account the savings on tickets and started buying food/drink there. These days I don't like to eat rubbish though so they've lost that benefit.. but I'd imagine I'm a bit of an "edge case" shall we say, so it probably works on everyone else.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[h4rr4r]

I can detect flicker in the theater yes, it is one of the reasons why I do not watch movies that way. I can detect flicker in a 60hz CRT, too.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Arathrael]

If you'd checked the link, you'd realise that as far as Zalman go, you're comparing a $3400 63" 3D Plasma TV with a < $500 21.5" LCD 3D monitor. They're not really directly comparable I'd say...

The main point I was making, though, is just that LCD displays which use circular polarization exist.

For larger 3D LCD displays using circular polarization, as another poster (jagsta) mentioned LG manufacture some. I'm not sure they're available to the home user yet (they're in pubs in the UK using Sky's 3D service), but the indications are the displays will be a bit cheaper than the active glasses equivalent, and more so when you account for the cost of additional pairs of glasses if you have family/friends.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[TexVex]

120 half-frames per second versus 144 half-frames per second does make the difference for me. Shutter glasses give me headaches. I am sensitive to flicker in progressive-scan CRT displays running at 60Hz but not at 72 Hz, but interlaced displays at 60 Hz (or 30 for each half-frame) don't give me trouble. Standard movie theater framerate isn't an issue -- yes, the low framerate makes the picutre "jumpy", but the transition between frames is fast enough that I'm not sensitive to it. None of the 3D movies I've seen using the polarized glasses has caused me trouble.

I don't exactly "see" the flicker, but after looking at a low refresh rate display for a short time I see migraine-like auras. It's kind of like what diffuse electricity might look like, sort of like a deep violet fog floating in front of the display, -- it's what I think of when I hear the phrase "purple haze". I think it's a result of a large portion of my field of vision flickering just below the threshold of perception. I may not see it but it does cause issues.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[orthicviper]

i'm with you on that. i wish they never made color TV, and whoever thought of that gimmicky stereo sound and 480i TV was a dumbass, that stuff adds nothing to the story of a movie!

Re:More 3-D madness.

[mattack2]

all the movies I've wanted to see recently have been exclusively in 3-D.

Like which ones? Are you in an area with very few theaters? I've definitely seen the big 3D movies lately (e.g. Toy Story 3) being shown in both 3D and 2D (in other words, the same theater has some of the screens in 3D, some in 2D). Even the commercials for various movies usually says "also in 2D".

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Khyber]

No matter the claimed response time, yes, all LCDs give me some ghosting that I can easily perceive.

It is annoying, to say the least.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[nacturation]

The left and right video streams will be skewed to one side - rather than centred on the image that the original cinematographer was looking at through his/her viewfinder.

If it was made for 3D, then the cinematographer has properly framed it to work from both the left and right "eye". Besides which, aren't we talking a difference of less than 10cm?

Re:More 3-D madness.

[jagsta]

I tried the shutter glasses only this week, I didn't experience any issues with flicker at all, although I only watched around 10 minutes of material so couldn't gauge whether fatigue would become an issue. They were noticably heavier than my reading glasses. The glasses and TV were Sony, i haven't tried out any other manufacturers shutter glasses yet.

I would still prefer a polarised projector solution - you get the full resolution, the glasses are passive (i.e cheap, lightweight, no batteries to replace and no syncing to the source) - overall this seems like a better solution to me, but of course not one which is avalable on TVs.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[TheLink]

Hey, you're the one who said:
"I disagree. At 60Hz each eye (120Hz total), there is no perceivable flicker at all on active glasses"
"Barring hardware problems you will see no flicker. Hate to break it to you but you do not have super vision."
"30Hz is the scientifically accepted threshold."

I was just pointing out that that you're wrong. Humans with normal human vision can see the flicker at such low refresh rates. No super vision is required.

Even now you say you see flicker from a 60Hz CRT. 3D shutter goggles will be similar to CRTs since they cycle between blocked/black and visible at 60Hz per eye. In comparison LCD displays may not actually go to black (the LCD backlights may run at higher Hz than 60).

And where's the source for the claim: "30Hz is the scientifically accepted threshold."?

Whether you or I find such low refresh rates acceptable or not is besides the point.

If you have difficulty realizing when you're wrong and spouting bullshit claims, it's your loss dude.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[commodore64_love]

>>>if it works for majority of the people, then the problem is in you. .....or just that one theater (not adjusted properly). And I've never had problems with 3D before, having watched tons of movies with red/blue glasses.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Yamata no Orochi]

You think 3D cinema is immersive

Lies and libel.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Yamata no Orochi]

I suppose so, yes. I'm in a mid-size tri-city area, there's about 5-6 theatres in the 50-mile radius that I can think of, and most of them aren't huge. And I'm not aware of any 2-D offerings at the same time a new big 3-D movie has been out.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[pnewhook]

I was just pointing out that that you're wrong. Humans with normal human vision can see the flicker at such low refresh rates. No super vision is required.

And I was pointing out you were wrong.

Even now you say you see flicker from a 60Hz CRT. 3D shutter goggles will be similar to CRTs since they cycle between blocked/black and visible at 60Hz per eye. In comparison LCD displays may not actually go to black (the LCD backlights may run at higher Hz than 60).

It's not similar in the slightest. Also LCD backlights don't have a 60Hz or any other refresh rate. They are constantly on. Look up the technology before you start arguing.

If you have difficulty realizing when you're wrong and spouting bullshit claims, it's your loss dude.

You are the one spouting bullshit as you seem to have no idea how the technology even works, and are arguing on your incorrect assumptions.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[pnewhook]

No matter the claimed response time, yes, all LCDs give me some ghosting that I can easily perceive.

See now I know that's bullshit because LCDs dont have a refresh flicker like CRTs. LCDs only have an update rate where the information is replace *without a blanking interval* with the new information. 60Hz, 70Hz - doesn't matter. It's just how fats it will keep up with the changing data. It's impossible to see flicker on an LCD.

CRTs are different in that there is a non-zero blanking interval as the gun realigns from the bottom of the screen to the top, and the phosphor dims from the last time the colour guns illuminated them.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[TheLink]

> "They are constantly on. Look up the technology before you start arguing."

I don't have to look it up. I KNOW the technology.

Why don't YOU look it up:

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

quote: "The cathode is the negative electrode. Any gas discharge lamp has a pair of electrodes, acting as cathode and anode (the positive electrode). Both electrodes alternate between acting as an anode and a cathode when these devices run with alternating current."

And also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backlight#Flicker_due_to_backlight_dimming

You remind me of an AI I was messing about with earlier. Pathetic, but as expected given the earlier responses.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[kieran]

It's definitely a frippery for movies, but I can imagine it being very cool for games - same as HDTV, in that respect (although much moreso).

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Tetsujin]

Too bad you failed to realize human vision is around 72Hz and not 60Hz, so your entire above statement is pure bullshit, or you're the defective one.

Really? 24Hz movie theaters must be unwatchable to you then.

24Hz is the rate that the film advances - not the rate of the projector's shutter. IIRC projectors project each frame twice - so film flicker is 48Hz. Still slower than 60Hz of course...

I'd expect that duty cycle plays a big part, too - with shutter glasses, each eye gets image for less than half of the time. With a 60Hz CRT, vertical blanking occurs 60 times a second - but the phosphors don't immediately fade, and the vertical blanking only takes about 1/10 the time that it takes to draw the actual frame...

That said, I haven't seen 3-D LCD TVs yet, let alone watched them enough to determine whether the shutter glasses would bother me.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Tetsujin]

3D really does not contribute in any way to a movie being "worthwhile" after you get over the novelty. I used to watch every 3D movie that came out when they were all the decent 3D rendered Pixar types, but these days there are plenty of crappy dumb horror movies and 3D stadium experience type ones that I don't consider worth it. Especially since I have an "Unlimited" card where I can see as many movies as I want a month for a flat rate.. except for the 3D ones which I now have to pay extra per movie, even if I bring my own glasses.. wtf?

You're not paying for 3-D glasses rental, you're paying for the fact that projecting 3-D requires more expensive equipment...

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Tetsujin]

3D video is nothing more than two 2D videos which alternate every other frame. It's trivial to create or decode; in fact, there are several ways you can do it:

• Put the left and right frames next to each other into one big video frame, or...
• Interleave the left and right frames into one stream with twice the frame rate, or...
• Multiplex the two streams into one file, or...
• Store the streams as two separate files.

Would interleaving the frames really work with lossy codecs? I mean, part of the way MPEG works is to detect trends in motion in the frame and encode those, effectively "morphing" some visual data from one frame to another. It's not a system that's well suited to the kind of jitter you'd get from interleaving a slightly different point-of-view into every second frame - not if you want to retain that jitter...

A more interesting approach would be to take advantage of the similarity between the left and right eye images for each 3-D frame, as well as the trends of color and motion in each stream... With an approach like that you should be able to encode a 3-D movie in significantly less than twice the space required for encoding the 2-D version...

Re:More 3-D madness.

[pnewhook]

I don't have to look it up. I KNOW the technology.

Arrogance. You must be a software script kiddie. Think you know everything.

Your links just prove yourself wrong. You reference dimming the backlight through PWM. Then obviously if it is not dimmed then the display is always on (100% duty cycle on PWM) and therefore not flashing. Duh.

And just because something is powered by AC doesn't mean it turns on and off. Do you think your fridge turns on and off at 60Hz because it is plugged into a wall?

Re:More 3-D madness.

[TheLink]

Sorry, I confused you and pnewhook.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[TheLink]

Sorry I think I confused you and cbreaker.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[pnewhook]

Yes, fluorescent lights flash - I said this earlier. Your LCD back light does not flash.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[Khyber]

"See now I know that's bullshit because LCDs dont have a refresh flicker like CRTs"

Hah, try playing a Wii game on an LCD using non-component cables. Specifically, try Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 3.

If you can't see the LCD-emulated scanline flicker, something is wrong with your eyes.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[cbreaker]

Yes, I can SEE 60hz on a CRT display. It's a foot from your face. It bothers me, yes, when I'm sitting in front of one all day long.

But 24hz on a movie screen doesn't.

Active-Matrix LCD screens don't "refresh" like a CRT. The Hz on those refers to how quickly the electronics can respond to a signal and how quickly the pixels can shift.

You seem to be the only one here complaining about this stuff. If 120hz (60hz per eye) isn't good enough for you, you're just being an elitist. You probably also think 320kbit MP3 just sucks next to flac, huh?

Re:More 3-D madness.

[cbreaker]

I'm guessing there will be polarized projectors available at some point (which use a polarizing wheel inside to alternate the frames, like RealD uses at a movie theater) and they will be compatible with the same 3D signal as the shudder systems use. However, polarization is only useful for projectors and RPTV's. Dual-projector setups seem overkill to me (and are difficult to set up) considering the polarization wheel scheme works so well.

If you want to have a flat panel, shudder will be the solution.

I haven't used the Sony glasses. The Samsung ones look a bit more goofy but they are as light as a feather. Lighter than my sunglasses.

Re:More 3-D madness.

[cbreaker]

Go fuck yourself.

But does it run Linux?

[betterunixthanunix]

It used to.

Re:But does it run Linux?

[whitedsepdivine]

I agree it would be much better if PS3 supported Compiz in 3D.

Re:But does it run Linux?

[bfree]

It still does as long as you didn't update the firmware from "Sony Fools" day onward. However if it runs Linux you can't use PSN, play new games, watch new blu-ray or see any of this 3d stuff.

Re:But does it run Linux?

[Pvt_Ryan]

You could always video yourself using linux. Convert the video to DVD and play it on the console.

Not quite as useful as running it but I guess it's the only way Linux will be on the PS3 again

Re:But does it run Linux?

[nschubach]

There were at least 6 suits filed: http://www.maxconsole.net/content.php?40318-Sixth-PS3-Other-OS-lawsuit-filed-against-Sony

Re:But does it run Linux?

[MozeeToby]

I haven't applied the patch for this exact reason. So far, the only issue has been using the PSN. I haven't yet hit any games or movies that have had problems. I know it's only a matter of time of course but I'm still hoping that they get pressured into reversing the stance before that happens. I'm holding out on nuking my Linux partition until there is something that I really want that I can't get. Luckily, I don't use the Linux partition much, just to play some old emulators that I can do nearly as easily on my PC so it won't affect me much when the inevitable happens.

Re:But does it run Linux?

[Aphoxema]

It only did everything!

Re:But does it run Linux?

[tlhIngan]

I haven't applied the patch for this exact reason. So far, the only issue has been using the PSN. I haven't yet hit any games or movies that have had problems. I know it's only a matter of time of course but I'm still hoping that they get pressured into reversing the stance before that happens. I'm holding out on nuking my Linux partition until there is something that I really want that I can't get. Luckily, I don't use the Linux partition much, just to play some old emulators that I can do nearly as easily on my PC so it won't affect me much when the inevitable happens.

Ditto. Except well, I treat it as a sign from Sony - Don't spend money on PSN or PS3!. I was cautious before about spending money on PSN (I never did - who would've figured that $20 PSN cards would always cost $20. Even $20 Xbox Live point cards (1600 points) go on sale - easily $15 and under). So, $0 spent on PSN, I won't bother with PSN Plus (no $50 for you, and I might've found those cards on discount, too - no reason to pay full price).

And now, Sony's also telling me to not buy PS3 games. Which is fine as I do have an Xbox360 so I'll just buy games for it.

The real thing Sony would do to get me to buy a PS3 exclusive would just result in me getting another PS3, which does nothing but lower the attachment rate for PS3s. (I have three PS3s, but only one Xbox. Buying another PS3 means I'll have 4. Yay Sony, you sold 4 PS3s and 1'll buy one game, so you'll sell .25 games per PS3. Wonderful! And I paid for two Xbox360s (I wanted one with HDMI) and gave my old one to my friend...).

Sony - you don't have to play tricks if you don't want me to spend money in your walled garden. Just say so and I won't have to keep pinching PS3 money to pay for Apple and Microsoft stuff.

Re:But does it run Linux?

[DrXym]

It used to and them someone announced a crack that exploited Linux. It's annoying they dumped support but completely understandable in the circumstances. Either they support the minuscule number of users who need Linux and psn and they leave the door wide open pirates or they don't. The choice they made was regrettable but a no brainer.

Re:But does it run Linux?

[danieltdp]

Imagine a cluster of that. Oh wait. Not anymore either...

Re:But does it run Linux?

[DrXym]

Sorry, it's a simple choice for Sony - lose hundreds of millions in piracy and reputation, or potentially lose a couple of million on some class action. It's clear which option Sony should choose. It sucks to be the tiny minority of Linux users (which included myself until recently) but its also obvious why they did it. Get a clue by looking what happened to the PSP once custom firmware turned up.

force-retire the Father of the Playstation?

[commodore64_love]

>>>"Given how fast technology turns over now, we knew going in that we had to pack a lot of horsepower into the PS3."

So why did Sony force-retire the Father of the Playstation, Ken Kutaragi? It sounds like he was visionary enough to "pack a lot of horsepower" into the PS3 for future growth. But instead of rewarding him, you put him out to pasture. Seems rather cruel.

Re:force-retire the Father of the Playstation?

[bsDaemon]

For retired race horses, being put out to stud is considered a great honor. Of course, the prospects probably aren't so good for 60-year-old engineers. Tough break, I guess.

Re:ps3

[SquarePixel]

This is not the usual ancient red-blue glasses, it's for 3D TV's with active shutter glasses. You cannot just feed the video stream normally.

Also, it's not just for 3D movies, it's for games too.

warn too much 3-D viewing sounds like Virtual Boy

[Joe The Dragon]

warn too much 3-D viewing sounds like Virtual Boy and that failed relay bad.

Whoopy fucking do

[Chrisq]

Whoopy fucking do. Booting foreign operating systems is out, 3D is in. Totally repositioned as a toy.

Re:Whoopy fucking do

[westlake]

Whoopy fucking do. Booting foreign operating systems is out, 3D is in. Totally repositioned as a toy.

It's called a Playstation, remember?

Eliminating the OtherOS removes a distraction. It shifts focus back to the PS3's core markets.

10%er?

[dazedNconfuzed]

Per prior /. story, some 10% of the population has trouble perceiving 3D.
I'm wondering if that subset coincides with the subset which is so vehemently against 3D video.

I find it well worth the minor extra cost. Video looks so ... flat ... without it.

Re:10%er?

[bsDaemon]

if i want to view things in 3D, why can't I just go do stuff in actual reality? I haven't ever really had trouble seeing 3D, as long as it was done well (stuff at Disney as opposed to crap on super bowl commercials i had to use cheapo glasses from a cereal box to see), I just don't really see what the big deal is. Then again, I barely watch "normal" TV, so that probably has a lot to do with it.

Re:10%er?

[smallfries]

Where do you go to shoot zombies in 3D in actual reality?

Re:10%er?

[bsDaemon]

I heard they have zombies in Haiti and sometimes in New Orleans. However, your mileage my vary.

Re:10%er?

[smallfries]

Damn. I have modpoints but I can't mod a reply to me funny in this universe.

Re:10%er?

[elrous0]

Those aren't zombies, they're black people. And please stop shooting them.

I want 8-D . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

To truly enjoy one of my favorite films . . . "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension"

Some please wake me up, when that firmware upgrade is announced.

HDMI 1.4

[rsmith-mac]

Does anyone know how is Sony supporting 3D BluRay on the PS3 when it requires HDMI 1.4? As I understand it, HDMI 1.4 is not a simple upgrade; it requires new generation transceivers on the source device which obviously can't apply to PS3s going back to 2006.

Re:HDMI 1.4

[kidgenius]

Well, the 3d is gimped a bit actually, and that's why they can do it with hdmi 1.3. The PS3 will just flicker the frames, so you won't be getting nice 120hz 3d, but more like 30hz 3d.

Re:HDMI 1.4

[jagsta]

the 3D bit of HDMI1.4 doesn't require any physical changes to transceivers or to cables, it's protocol and display mode related. It's stuff like the HDMI ethernet channel and audio return channel which would require different cables/transceivers. You'll be able to run 3D over the existing cable you've already got if it's a 1.3 spec.

Re:HDMI 1.4

[pnewhook]

Does anyone know how is Sony supporting 3D BluRay on the PS3 when it requires HDMI 1.4? As I understand it, HDMI 1.4 is not a simple upgrade; it requires new generation transceivers on the source device which obviously can't apply to PS3s going back to 2006.

Likely they are only implementing the 3D portion of the spec, not the other stuff like audio return, ethernet or 4k resolution. Changing to 3D would only require an update in the refresh rate to 120Hz which they could probably have planned for when they designed it.

Re:Whatever.

[Rik Sweeney]

I can't buy Deathspank on PSN yet.

Yes you can, it came out today (in Europe anyway).

Now your rootkit comes in 3 D I M E N S I O N S !

[elrous0]

See THE HORROR of Sony's control freaks in 3-D!
Witness the heavy hand of DRM in its FULL GLORY!
Experience the fear of another PS3 feature being pulled in ALL ITS DEPTH!
Watch as the Japanese come RIGHT OUT IN THE THEATER to take over your console industry!

Won't somebody think of the children?

[erroneus]

And this time, I believe, the cry fits. We all read previous stories about how 3D video games can serve to damage the visual perception of young children. This was identified long ago by a game console maker which then quietly halted pursuit of a 3D video gaming system. Now they want to try it again?

I realize it's "for movies" but I think it makes little difference whether it will be video games or movies.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children?

[somersault]

One specific type of 3D system was identified to have negative effects in the 90s yes - that doesn't mean all 3D systems will be bad. Besides, 2D screens are already pretty bad for you I thought?

I think the problem with the system that you mention was probably to do with having the screens right in front of your eyes, but the system didn't actually track eye movement to change the display according to where you looked. That seems like it would mess with your brain-eye coordination and ability to focus correctly on objects etc, especially if used by kids who haven't yet fully developed the parts of their brain that interpret visual stimuli.

Awesome!

[zmollusc]

I shall rush out and buy a PS3 just as soon as I forgive Sony for the cd rootkit, and for removing linux option for PS3. This is assuming PS3 is still available, it may be the PS72 by then. And that is also assuming that Sony haven't pulled any more annoying stunts.

Re:warn too much 3-D viewing sounds like Virtual B

[elrous0]

For some reason I just got a headache.

Re:Now your rootkit comes in 3 D I M E N S I O N S

[elrous0]

Obviously, the Jap 5th-columnists have already gotten to you. They've brainwashed you into thinking Atari and Microsoft are Japanese. There is no help for you now, I'm afraid. Soon you'll be worshiping Hirohito and crashing your plane into one of our destroyers. You won't even like the taste of apple pie by then.

You forgot something

[NotSoHeavyD3]

If I remember correctly he also designed the sound chip in the SNES

Re:Kutagari's Console Hardware Dominance

[commodore64_love]

>>>PS3(3rd fastest),

I don't know what alternative universe you live in, but this isn't even close to true. PS3 is the least popular of this generation's consoles (3rd place), and its number of units sold (about 30 million) is no better than what the Gamecube or Nintendo64 sold during their five year spans.

>>>Created the top selling console in history, the 145 million worldwide selling PS2
>>>Destroyed piece of crap HD-DVD format with Blu-Ray

AND he also created the top-selling PS1 (130 million). That's all true. They should have treated Ken better, rather than force him into retirement like an old unwanted dog. I hate when corporations treat human beings like "human resources".
.

>>>* Bitter Dreamcast fanboy
>>>* Bitter Xbox fanboy
>>>* Bitter HD-DVD fanboy

Fanboys are typically people too poor to own more than one console, hence they defend whichever one they've got. Since I own one of each (Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft), I am a "fanboy" of none of them. They're just pieces of plastic to me. In other words you guessed wrong.

Fine As Long...

[EXTomar]

I'm okay with it as long as...

- Its free and distributed by a patch/update.
- It doesn't interfere if I don't have 3-D hardware hooked up.
- Easy to enable/disable/configure if I do have 3-D hardware hooked up.

If it is seemless and free and doesn't break anything then it is really a "value add" and I don't mind.

Re:Fine As Long...

[somersault]

The update will be free, Sony 3D TV and 3D movies/games I suspect will not be quite so free..

PS tis "seamless"

Cool

[MrTripps]

It speaks well of Sony to keep adding things to their product. I remember when I got my PS3 if PS4 would be out the next year. Yes, losing Linux was sucky.

Re:Cool

[Megane]

"sucky"? Is that all you can say about it? It means you can't trust them not to remove a random feature from the PS4 if they decide they don't like it any more.

Yes, more power is awesome

[DeanCubed]

Because they certainly could not have had motion controls on a less powerful system, like for instance, the PSP, or even a GameCube-level home console.... Does anyone here on /. have a 3D television at home? Has it been worth it so far?

Not the same

[SuperKendall]

I have a Virtua Boy, and the 3D from that system is totally different than modern 3D systems. You can watch a whole 3D movie now with ease, but the Virtual Boy involved a lot more eyestrain - possibly in part because of the bright monochromatic red...

can I also have update for my Sony LCD tv?

[Gunstick]

Hey so I only have to update the PS3, the sony TV (Just one year old, come on!, and it is the top of the line model too!) and buy a couple of glasses.
Do you have this as a bundle?

Oh, this is classified in the "will never happen" section?

When?

[Megane]

Real soon!

Re:ps3

[Comen]

I beleive this does take twice the bandwidth, I know that Nvidia's soulution says you have to have atleast a 120Hz display, they call them "3D Vision-Ready Displays" and have a list on the website. 3d TV's would have to have the same high Hz rating so that you can basicly send twice the amount of information across the HDMI link to the TV.
For every normal 60 progressive frames, you would have 2 frames, one for each eye. I would assume the encoding is different and a software update was needed in the PS3.
The blue ray disk would hold twice the information, but a video game would take more processing power since you would render each scean twice one slightly off from the other to create a left and right eye version of a 3d scean.
Your PC must have had drivers installed with the glasses etc.

Fix the Damn Original Units

[BigSes]

It'd be nice if they would actually get around to admitting the YLOD overheat problem with the older 40-60-80 gig units is a manufacturing error (its obvious upon disassembly that the thermal grease is improperly applied and of low quality) and fix them. Hell, even Microsoft admitted to and addressed the RROD problem, taking steps to properly assist those who suffered from it.

Not bad sony...

[Degro]

If this was Apple, they would only enable Move and 3D on the new PS3S!

3d viewing

[SnarfQuest]

Sony also updated its PS3 Terms of Service to warn against too much 3-D viewing.

Good thing we aren't exposed to 3D that often. It's not like you could look out your window, and *bampf* everything is in 3D.

Re:3d viewing

[Tetsujin]

Sony also updated its PS3 Terms of Service to warn against too much 3-D viewing.

Good thing we aren't exposed to 3D that often. It's not like you could look out your window, and *bampf* everything is in 3D.

Damn, not only is your world in 3-D, but Nightcrawler is there, too??

Re:ps3

[Khyber]

"Your PC must have had drivers installed with the glasses etc."

No, this capability was built into the TNT2 generation of cards made by ASUS. No drivers required, only the game had to support it.

DescentII in 3D was the shit.

Re:Another worthless firmware...

[HTH NE1]

Some of us never let them take OtherOS away. My unit still has the capability (but as yet unused).

Of course, that didn't stop Sony from making accepting updates mandatory. But as long as I leave it disconnected from the network (and don't load any disks that contain auto-apply updates), my unit's resale value is preserved. I only ever bought two games for it anyway and my display isn't 3D-capable.

I'm still looking to the hacking community to reverse-engineer these updates to enable their new features while keeping OtherOS intact.

Re:ps3

[Xarin]

I have trouble enough finding all the remote controls. The shutter glasses seem to be just one more thing to have to find and put batteries in. One reason CDs replaced Vinyl and MP3s are replacing CDs is it is a lot more convenient to just listen to something. This seems to be a step backwards.

Re:ps3

[danieltdp]

I don't know how it works, but it can be done feeding normal images, once for the right eye, and once for the left one, and making sure que glasses shutter speed is in sync with the refresh rate of the tv.

But this is Sony. My guess is that they made something more complicated in order to "protect" their tecnology from copies and to "stimulate" people to buy new tvs.

Re:ps3

[cbreaker]

It's not really twice the bandwidth, as far as I can tell.

I have a new Samsung 63" Plasma display (the new plasmas these days are impressive as hell and have long life spans) and I have a 3D BluRay player and a PS3. When the device (PS3 or BluRay player) goes into "3d Mode" the TV automatically switches and starts emitting the signal for the glasses. If you look at the screen in 3D mode, you see a lot more dithering of the video signal, especially in low light scenes.

When you have the glasses on, you really can almost not see the dithering, because your brain combines the images, but when the glasses are off you can definitely tell that there's less data being sent to the display for each "eye's" screen.

I'll tell you though, the 3D stuff on the Plasma with the shudder glasses is really good. You rarely see any "bleed" (eye sees images/ghosting from other eye) and it's no worse than an IMAX. Of course, the screen isn't as big, so you don't get the full impact of a full IMAX 3D screen but the quality of the 3D is great.

The motorstorm 3D demo on the PS3 kicks SERIOUS ass.

I can't wait go be able to get more than 2 movies and three games :)

Re:ps3

[cbreaker]

So, let's ditch 3D because you can't keep your shit organized enough to have a spare battery (with a 70hr life span) or that you'll misplace them?

Let's ditch cars because you always lose your keys, too.

Fortunately, some of us are a tad little bit more responsible than that.

Re:ps3

[cbreaker]

No, it's not more complicated. You use the glasses that go with your TV, that's it. As long as your TV is connected via HDMI and the PS3 detects it as a 3D display, the PS3 3D stuff will work. I have a Samsung TV with Samsung glasses and the 3D PS3 games work just great.

Honestly, besides the issues of old HDMI 1.1/1.2 receivers not working with the 3D stuff (you need at least HDMI 1.3) it's really a very simple set up. If you have a 3D Capable TV, it's not more complicated than buying the wireless glasses to go with it.

Re:Oh Joy! Fanboy Sales Numbers

[N0Man74]

When it's not quite enough to have a fanboy war over just your consoles... that's when it's time to bring in the fanboy and anti-fanboy wars over your source! Seriously?

I don't care about VGChartz, but what source is supposed to be more accurate? When I look at information that I quickly gathered that is either directly from the companies, or from an article citing direct information, the sales totals look to be pretty damn close to the numbers of VGCharts.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6261400.html?tag=recent_news;title;1
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2010/jan10/01-06CESKeynote.mspx
http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps3_sale_e.html

Are these fanboy numbers? Just who should people trust for sales numbers? I don't really care which console wins this imaginary war, but if people are making up numbers then bring in some sources to dispute then, rather than try to feel like a big boy by insulting strangers over the internet.

And who the hell cares who "wins"!? In fact, let me enlighten you a little here.

A clear winner emerging that shuts out the others is a *bad* thing for you. Competition is what drives innovation, quality, and fairness to consumers. Each of these companies brings something to the table for gamers, and each offers a choice. Without this competition, the industry would become destined for stagnation and complacency. What we have this generation are 3 consoles that all bring something to the table, and can all file a niche. This is a good thing for the industry as a whole, even if the competition isn't filling your particular niche.

Seriously, is your need to somehow have your choice in video game validated that important to you?

Re:Another worthless firmware...

[CronoCloud]

Of course, that didn't stop Sony from making accepting updates mandatory. But as long as I leave it disconnected from the network (and don't load any disks that contain auto-apply updates),

You're misinterpreting the info out there, they're mandatory to use PSN, but they won't be auto-installed without your say so. The PS3 always asks confirmation before any firmware update is started.