satow
Minor Hero
Posts: 76
|
Post by satow on Feb 17, 2010 18:11:18 GMT -5
www.retrevo.com/my/5875/article/19681214?cmpid=EmailWhat Makes a Blu-ray Player 3D Compatible?Two important features will make Blu-ray players able to play 3D movies. HDMI 1.4 is the latest cabling standard that supports a high bit rate necessary to send the extra data the TV needs to display two different images to each eye for the 3D effect. The other feature is the new standard that the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) has adopted for 3D movies. In some cases support for the new standard will only require a firmware upgrade but older players may not have the processing power required to decode the new 3D video. Will a New 3D Blu-ray Player Work with My Old Receiver?Unfortunately your old receiver won't support 3D at least full 1080p 3D that will require an HDMI 1.4 port. If you try and send an HDMI 1.4 signal through an HDMI 1.3 port, the 3D information will be stripped off before it gets passed on to the TV. For that reason some manufacturers like Panasonic are offering dual HDMI ports on some of their new 3D Blu-ray players where one signal goes to the receiver for the audio and the other to your new 3DTV. Will the UMC-1 be able to support HDMI 1.4 with a firmware upgrade?
|
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator 
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,852
|
Post by LCSeminole on Feb 17, 2010 18:22:06 GMT -5
I'm going to say it won't support it at 1080p, being that it is version 1.3. Having said that, if blu-ray players are going to have dual HDMI outputs then why does it matter if your version 1.3 receiver/processor is capable? This isn't just a matter of your blu-ray player and processor being capable, the display will have to be upgraded and way too many people bought into 1080p displays to turn around and pay for yet another gimick. I've seen a couple of 3D movies recently and by the end of the movie I have a headache, I'm not upgrading so I can have headaches, simple as that. If you're interested Home Theater Magazine and Sound & Vision have good articles on the good & bad of this new technology.
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs 
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 17, 2010 20:56:09 GMT -5
Are you getting a 3D display compatible with the 3D bluray? Cool. Let us know how much that puts you back.  |
|
|
|
Post by dotvibe on Feb 18, 2010 6:03:35 GMT -5
Amen brother.
The best thing about 3D? It'll force the price of regular 1080p displays down so that I can afford a proper TV.
|
|
satow
Minor Hero
Posts: 76
|
Post by satow on Feb 18, 2010 13:39:51 GMT -5
Apparently some of the naysayers haven't watched Avalon in 3D on Imax, or they didn't have the physical capability to enjoy it. In my opinion, home 3D will become very popular.
In terms of pricing:
Samsung announced the Samsung BD-C6900 which also includes WiFi and streaming services including Netflix and Pandora. It's expected to cost around $400.
In terms of media:
3D Blu-ray movies supporting the new BDA 3D standard should be available later this year from studios like Walt Disney and Sony Pictures. Disney recently indicated that we may see a 3D Blu-ray version of its forthcoming Alice in Wonderland 3D movie as soon as 13 weeks after release in the theaters on March 5th.
In terms of 3D capable displays:
The Sony XBR-LX900 and Panasonic TC-PVT25, (includes the necessary glasses) will be released sometime this summer. Given the price structure, I figure it will be start at the $4.5k range.
People used to balk at HDTV. They balked at 1080p. Lots of naysayers, but the market has always proved differently. Beta vs. VHS. Everyone knows technically that Beta is a better format, but VHS won.
People complained about the stupidity of satellite radio. And when Howard Stern moved to satellite, everyone boo'ed him saying that he was going to fail. He made $500 million on that deal and know he can broadcast his show without FCC restrictions. And those same people who complained about Satradio now use them.
Just like when CD's first came out. They didn't sound as good as LP's, same thing. Most of those complainers are now listening to lossy mp3 files on their iPods.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlesaint on Feb 18, 2010 14:55:29 GMT -5
I think the point is that your processor/AVR not having HDMI 1.4 is not the biggest obstacle to a full 3D experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by monkeypimp on Feb 18, 2010 15:28:52 GMT -5
Apparently some of the naysayers haven't watched Avalon in 3D on Imax, or they didn't have the physical capability to enjoy it. In my opinion, home 3D will become very popular. In terms of pricing: Samsung announced the Samsung BD-C6900 which also includes WiFi and streaming services including Netflix and Pandora. It's expected to cost around $400. In terms of media: 3D Blu-ray movies supporting the new BDA 3D standard should be available later this year from studios like Walt Disney and Sony Pictures. Disney recently indicated that we may see a 3D Blu-ray version of its forthcoming Alice in Wonderland 3D movie as soon as 13 weeks after release in the theaters on March 5th. In terms of 3D capable displays: The Sony XBR-LX900 and Panasonic TC-PVT25, (includes the necessary glasses) will be released sometime this summer. Given the price structure, I figure it will be start at the $4.5k range. People used to balk at HDTV. They balked at 1080p. Lots of naysayers, but the market has always proved differently. Beta vs. VHS. Everyone knows technically that Beta is a better format, but VHS won. People complained about the stupidity of satellite radio. And when Howard Stern moved to satellite, everyone boo'ed him saying that he was going to fail. He made $500 million on that deal and know he can broadcast his show without FCC restrictions. And those same people who complained about Satradio now use them. Just like when CD's first came out. They didn't sound as good as LP's, same thing. Most of those complainers are now listening to lossy mp3 files on their iPods. Most of your examples don't take into account that convenience is what drives them. Cd and ipods beating LP's is really about convenience not quality. As for Beta vs VHS that is because of one industry choosing one over the other...this was not directly consumer driven. Satelite radio is nothing in the grand scheme of audio....I don't have it nor want it as do none of my friends. Bluray is accepted because of the PLAYSTATION 3..... And husbands across America and the world get away with it because the wife doesn't really get impacted....With 3-d your wife will have to wear glasses....this ain't gonna fly. Unless they stop making DVD's and Std Blurays 3D will die. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Ronesia on Feb 18, 2010 15:35:43 GMT -5
Now when they figure out 3d without the glasses then I'm in.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,488
Member is Online
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 18, 2010 15:38:26 GMT -5
As for Beta vs VHS that is because of one industry choosing one over the other...this was not directly consumer driven. Actually it was almost completely consumer driven. The first generation of VHS offered 2-hour recording time on a single tape while Beta was originally limited to 30 minutes per tape. When the tape format war was cooking the most common Beta complaint was "I can't record a whole move."  The industry chose Beta and in fact used Beta tape for professional videography for many years after it failed as a consumer format. |
|
|
|
Post by monkeypimp on Feb 18, 2010 15:44:47 GMT -5
As for Beta vs VHS that is because of one industry choosing one over the other...this was not directly consumer driven. Actually it was almost completely consumer driven. The first generation of VHS offered 2-hour recording time on a single tape while Beta was originally limited to 30 minutes per tape. When the tape format war was cooking the most common Beta complaint was "I can't record a whole move." The industry chose Beta and in fact used Beta tape for professional videography for many years after it failed as a consumer format. Yes but I am one of those that believe the adoption by the pornography industry is what drove the adoption of VHS. Which is why I used the word directly. I think consumers chose VHS because Porn chose it. |
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Feb 18, 2010 16:09:39 GMT -5
Actually it was almost completely consumer driven. The first generation of VHS offered 2-hour recording time on a single tape while Beta was originally limited to 30 minutes per tape. When the tape format war was cooking the most common Beta complaint was "I can't record a whole move." The industry chose Beta and in fact used Beta tape for professional videography for many years after it failed as a consumer format. Yes but I am one of those that believe the adoption by the pornography industry is what drove the adoption of VHS. Which is why I used the word directly. I think consumers chose VHS because Porn chose it. movie... bluray...now I understand where they got the name! |
|
|
|
Post by spartanstew on Feb 21, 2010 15:15:13 GMT -5
Are you getting a 3D display compatible with the 3D bluray? Cool. Let us know how much that puts you back. I already have three 3D capable displays, so it will set me back Zero. |
|
|
|
Post by pynchon on Feb 21, 2010 15:45:11 GMT -5
Apparently some of the naysayers haven't watched Avalon in 3D on Imax, or they didn't have the physical capability to enjoy it. In my opinion, home 3D will become very popular. I didn't even hear of 'Avalon' - I saw a movie called Avatar and it was ok, but I had to keep those glasses off my nose - uncomfortable to me. Dragged on a little... Unless it is very dark in your room will 3d really have that much impact? I mean if around avatar I see my wine rack and kitchen counter and cat sitting on my speaker, eh. I don't mind going to the movies once a year when a decent 3d movie comes out. And there's no way an Imax screen is fitting in your house. It may have some market room with people with dedicated home theater rooms, but that market is not 'huge' - still could make some cash I'm sure. But for typical TV in living room crowd, I'm a bit weary of thinking 3D is going to take over. Most people still don't even have surround sound, and the TVs they have average 42-50 inch lower range ($1k). |
|
satow
Minor Hero
Posts: 76
|
Post by satow on Feb 22, 2010 0:36:24 GMT -5
Apparently some of the naysayers haven't watched Avalon in 3D on Imax, or they didn't have the physical capability to enjoy it. In my opinion, home 3D will become very popular. I didn't even hear of 'Avalon' - I saw a movie called Avatar and it was ok, but I had to keep those glasses off my nose - uncomfortable to me. Dragged on a little... Unless it is very dark in your room will 3d really have that much impact? I mean if around avatar I see my wine rack and kitchen counter and cat sitting on my speaker, eh. I don't mind going to the movies once a year when a decent 3d movie comes out. And there's no way an Imax screen is fitting in your house. It may have some market room with people with dedicated home theater rooms, but that market is not 'huge' - still could make some cash I'm sure. But for typical TV in living room crowd, I'm a bit weary of thinking 3D is going to take over. Most people still don't even have surround sound, and the TVs they have average 42-50 inch lower range ($1k). Geez, I wrote Avalon? I meant Avatar... wow! I wonder what I was thinking about then I typed in Avalon... Actually I think there might be some confusion here. 3D HDTV and Bluray is an additional feature, not the norm while watching HDTV. In other words, your 3D capable HDTV will normally display HDTV video. Your 3D Bluray player will play regular Blu-rays disks. The consumer has the OPTION of playing and watching movies in 3D. I'm hoping people aren't THAT foolish into thinking that they will be watching everything in 3D. After reading through the threads, I'm got the feeling that some of the members might be doltish enough to actually think that. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,488
Member is Online
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 22, 2010 1:07:59 GMT -5
IMO, "Avalon" was a much better movie than "Avatar," |
|
|
|
Post by majestyk on Feb 22, 2010 9:27:01 GMT -5
I can already see the future of 3D movies. It will only be animated movies and bad summer pop corn flicks that have it. Serious directors will stick to 2D. It might not start out that way in the first year or two, but that's the way it will end up.
I'd probably like Avalon better...No I didn't like Avatar.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,488
Member is Online
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 22, 2010 9:35:32 GMT -5
I can already see the future of 3D movies. It will only be animated movies and bad summer pop corn flicks that have it. Serious directors will stick to 2D. It might not start out that way in the first year or two, but that's the way it will end up. I'd probably like Avalon better...No I didn't like Avatar. I certainly hope you are right. I have no interest at all in 3D movies. Avalon |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 22, 2010 17:39:31 GMT -5
Ok lets talk about the real reason behind the 3D push in the press. It is hard to get a good bootleg copy of a 3D movie.  |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,488
Member is Online
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 22, 2010 17:42:31 GMT -5
Ok lets talk about the real reason behind the 3D push in the press. It is hard to get a good bootleg copy of a 3D movie. I think the real reason is the promise of 3D pRon. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by jeffreymercado on Feb 22, 2010 18:01:28 GMT -5
Engadget posted this about the sony blu-ray players, so an upgrade might be possible:
Surprisingly, Sony has announced that they’re going to be sending full 1080p 3D signals over existing cables. Of course, that’s not the whole story.
Sony revealed recently that their new players are capable of a lot more than we thought. Mainly, they're able to process a 1080p 3D signal.
Shop the Big Blu-ray Sale at Amazon
Save up to 55 percent on 196 Blu-ray Movies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s been a lot of confusion with the advent of 3D and HDMI 1.4, and the initial word was that HDMI 1.3 just couldn’t handle 3D in 1080p. As Sony pointed out though, that’s not really the case. Their new Blu-ray players can hack a 1080p signal using your existing HDMI cords.
So what’s the deal? Well, there are two real factors here. First off, while Sony’s new player doesn’t bear the HDMI 1.4 branding, it sounds like it will still be HDMI 1.4 compatible. As a Sony rep said, “The players and theater systems support the HDMI 1.4 spec for 3D playback, but may not support all of the qualifications of spec.”
So the players won’t support everything required to get HDMI 1.4 branding, but you’ll still be able to get the 3D benefits of HDMI 1.4 while using an HDMI 1.4 cord. The player doesn’t work with the other features of the new spec though, such as an audio return channel, which means it doesn’t get HDMI 1.4 branding.
The second thing, and perhaps the most important, is that HDMI 1.3 will indeed carry a 3D signal at 1080p. It can’t handle 3D at sixty frames per second though, only thirty. Of course, while watching movies on most Blu-ray players, the output is set to 24fps, which HDMI 1.3 can handle just fine.
|
|
The industry chose Beta and in fact used Beta tape for professional videography for many years after it failed as a consumer format.
