This is topic Quality of 3D on DVD in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000675

---

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 12-14-2008, 10:59 PM:
 
We picked up a copy of Polar Express yesterday at Toys R Us even though we already had it on dvd because it boasted 3D on the cover in big letters. I was skeptical but decided to get it anyways. It came with those stupid paper red/blue glasses. Well, it didn't work. It only made my right eye more dominant as the darker red shut my left eye off. My wife didn't think it worked either. The note inside said to raise the brightness level on the tv to make it work. I tried it on my 51" HD projection tv and my 27" tube tv in my house. It didn't work on either no matter how I played with the picture.

Do these dvd 3D movies work at all or am I doing something wrong? I was wondering if some of those gray lens 3D glasses with a red plastic frame would be better suited for this. Anyone have any ideas?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-14-2008, 11:09 PM:
 
The first strike against it is MPEG 2 compression. Both the reds and the blues are absolutely destroyed. DVD is inferior and should be abandoned by everyone.

The second strike is very few TVs display red and/or blue the same as other TVs or even properly to begin with, especially in NTSC.

The third strike could be the glasses themselves. Believe it or not, they do make a difference.
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 12-14-2008, 11:13 PM:
 
I'd try adjusting the tint on the TV to try to fix the balance between the eyes. Anaglyphic on a whole sucks.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-14-2008, 11:22 PM:
 
Anaglyphic 3D sucks ass, even on Blu-ray Disc. The only way I'm bothering with 3D at all is if I can see it in full color -in IMAX 3D preferably or the digital 3D theatrical variants (Real-D, Dolby 3D).

Until full color 3D is feasible for "home theater" I don't think Hollywood should be screwing around with it at all. But I think some new generations of HDTV monitors, Blu-ray players and computer controlled LCD shutter glasses will be in order to make full color 3D work in the home.

For one thing, 240Hz refresh rate HDTV monitors will be a must. That very high refresh rate is a common denominator for both 30fps and 24fps material. Double the frame rate to 48Hz and 60Hz and the 240Hz thing still works. Then you need a generation of LCD shutter glasses that runs fast enough to accommodate a 240Hz refresh rate. It's also likely new Blu-ray players and PS3 gaming consoles would be needed to deliver that high speed refresh rate too. Those are the technology goals. It's a pretty simple target to identify. And current technology and cheap compromises isn't going to get the job done. So that is how it is and there is no alternative. Simple as that.

DLP and RPTV technology is a dead thing. So no one needs to even raise the polarized glasses angle. If 3D is going to happen in home theater it has to happen in a manner compatible with flat panel LCD or Plasma driven HDTV monitors. If the developers can't make home 3D work with LCD or Plasma then it isn't going to happen at all.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-14-2008, 11:33 PM:
 
Joe hit it right on all 3 strikes.

The type of color subsampling (4:2:0) used in the DVD standard prior to the MPEG2 compression in both NTSC or PAL, screws up the edge of the different colors, which mind you, is exactly where the "3D" resides. Then the MPEG2 compression farther garbles this whole thing up. DVD is quite unsuitable for "perfect" anaglyph 3D video by design.

Then the colors produced on the TV screens have to match the colors of the filters used in the glasses. And mind you that no 2 TV's in the market put out the same RED and BLUE

Then comes the filters on the glasses, which should be made of a density enough to cancel the other image effectively but to allow similar luminance levels to go through, as the brain gets really bothered with images of different intensity on each eye and has a halleluyah time trying to fuse them. Mind you the included glasses seldom have any of this in account and they merely go for the ones that cost 1 cent less than the other cheapest one they could find.

And we can add a handful more of strikes if you wish. For once, the anaglyph system (no matter what their proponents say), is never very effective for full color images, although it can work great (with enormous effort and care) for black and white or limited color subjects. So even if it worked perfectly, it still wouldn't quite be all that great and strain-free.

But one quick reminder is to test wearing the glasses "the other way around" (i.e. with the blue filter on the other eye). You would be surprised how often I've found DVD's with instructions to place say the red lens over the right eye while the movie was actually encoded the other way

So the short answer is yes: most 3D DVD's with red/blue glasses on the market (the majority) are ... how can we put this ... errr ... below what could be considered a high quality presentation (some less conservative would say they suck or they don't work at all).

Comparing to this, that's why so many people are so happy when they see a Real/Dolby 3D film

And about home 3D systems, I don't know why the fixation on active glasses and refresh rates. Monitors and large TV's using polarized image separation are in the market and are cheap.

Read this post for more info: http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000256;p=2#000021

$3500 will buy you a 1920x1080 46" polarized 3D (alternating scan line) Hyundai TV in Japan TODAY.

http://item.rakuten.co.jp/getplus/1643383/
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-14-2008, 11:46 PM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

And about home 3D systems, I don't know why the fixation on active glasses and refresh rates. Monitors and large TV's using polarized image separation are in the market and are cheap

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

That's why I insist any full color home 3D system absolutely must be able to operate with flat panel HDTV sets. And that means working with plasma and LCD designs that never do work with polarized systems. Active LCD shutter glasses will be a mandatory feature of any full color home 3D system.

---

Errr, not so LCD flat panels capable of displaying 3D pictures visible with simple (not active) polarizing glasses have existed for over 10 years. I can assure you, since I own one.

Let me also repeat.

I'm not talking about DLP rear projection sets.

I'm talking about FLAT LCD MONITORS which show both color images on the screen at the same time but each one of them with a different polarization direction (or circular orentation) which you can watch in 3D with simple (cheap, passive, confortable) polarized glasses.

Read the included links and you'll find out how they work.

They have existed for a long time (over 15 years when LCD panels were 14" tops and costed >$3000, starting with Vrex's upol technology for flat 3D LCD panels).

The simplest system polarizes each line of pixels with a different direction, so you do lose half the vertical resolution, but still a good compromise. Plus both images are exactly on the screen at the same time, so no refresh problem, flicker, temporal disparities or anything like that.

Other systems sandwich two panels and no resolution is lost, as one panel acts as a polarization steering for each subpixel.

http://www.iz3d.com/t-3dproductex.aspx

http://www.zalman.co.kr/eng/product/product_read.asp?idx=219

And those are only the non-professional products in the market TODAY *everywhere* (check your favourite online electronic shop) for under $500. Get your credit card ready, ask for next day delivery, and tomorrow you can be watching a full color flicker-free stereoscopic 3D movie in a high resolution 22" flat monitor in your house with passive glasses (as long as you own some 3D movies in a suitable format and a computer to play them back ... shall you decide to do this, let me recommend the Zalman).

The Hyundai 46" full HD 3D TV (not just a monitor, a full flat panel 1920x1080 resolution LCD TV) is only available in Japan right now and at $3500 is not all that cheap. Glasses are regular passive circular polarized ones, although the ones they sell with the TV are rather ugly black plastic ones.

All this available commercially TODAY when there is not even an standard for full color HD 3D delivery system in the movie/tv industry. Whenever one is in place, we'll see 50" full color, full HD resolution polarized-3D FLAT PANEL tv's the following week for only a bit more than their 2D counterparts.

And non-commercially, every single large manufacturer have shown prototypes of similar (flat, NOT rear projected but true-flat panel) 3D monitors/TV's over the years. Sharp, Sanyo, Toshiba, LG ... they all have them ready for whenever the market requires them (read, whenever a TV/HD 3D standard is agreed upon and sufficient 3D blu-ray movies are offered by hollywood).

It all comes down really to Hollywood and TV industry willingness to produce tons of 3D material. The technology to take it to the home and watch it reasonably well and confortable for cheap is already there. I mean, it's already HERE.

But if you must insist on flat panels with active glasses, you can ask Sony to mass produce this 240fps FED flat monitor: http://www.sonyinsider.com/2008/11/19/sony-shows-off-gran-turismo-5-at-240fps-on-a-fed-display/



Note that you could also use passive polarizing glasses with such a system by placing a z-screen (like Real 3-D's) on top of it to rotate the polarity 240 times per second. And trust me, you have NOTHING to worry about pricing for a z-screen of just about any size. You can have one manufactured for the price of a McMenu (although not so much above about 120hz, but even then not much more and available all the way to the >1000hz range).

Like this, but using a fast LCD or rather a fast FED or SED or OLED flat display instead of a CRT: http://www.vrlogic.com/html/stereographics/monitor_z-screen.html

So my guess is that active shutter 3D glasses are NOT the way of the future when simple cheap passive ones would do just fine through no less than 7 different technologies that can be applied to flat panel displays.

[ 12-16-2008, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-16-2008, 02:13 PM:
 
Or you can get this other one if you are based in England and are in a hurry :

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-060-HY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnauH6JQtY0

Plenty of offers available today to the general public and many more in the back-burner ready to come out when needed for the home market.

And at a professional level, I think it was 1986 when I bought the first micro-polarized LCD panel (to be used as a polarized stereoscopic 3D flat monitor or retroproyector). Wow, over 20 years ago. It sold for something like $10.000, IIRC. It coupled perfectly with that domestic Toshiba 3D camcorder of the time
 

---

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-16-2008, 04:43 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

The third strike could be the glasses themselves. Believe it or not, they do make a difference.

---

quote: Joe Tommassello

---

I don't see how they will display two hi-def images on one plasma or lcd screen without it being field sequential. Otherwise wouldn't they have to cut the resolution in half?

---

You can follow the links on top to find out. Indeed, most of the monitors (those that are virtually the same price as 2D equivalent, only about $10 more cost for the microretarder) use half the resolution for each eye. The odd lines present one image and the even lines the other.

This can be overcome in two ways.

If you look at the $399 22" iz3d monitor on sale everywhere, it uses *TWO* 1680x1050 LCD panels sandwiched together. Hence it starts with twice the number of pixels and it offers the same resolution in both 2D and 3D content.

The others offer the full resolution for 2D content when watched w/o glasses and half the resolution per eye when you wear your passive glasses (each eye only sees one line of the display and the other the line underneath).

Also, you could manufacture a monitor with 1920x2160 resolution on a correct 1.78 aspect ratio. When you show 2D content, just duplicate every horizontal line. When you show 3D, use each horizontal line alternatively for each eye. There, you have two full HD images at the same time in the same monitor.

I don't know why you guys have a hard time believing that line-alternating polarization (both linear and circular) flat panel monitors exist, and even some similar to 50's vectograph techonology where it's not even alternating polarization but actually overlapped, using two panels, one as a dynamic polarizer to steer the amount of light (intensity) reaching each eye individually for each subpixel and the other to actually determine the intensity of the subpixel -- therefore its color.

Heck, there have even been in the past flat panel monitors for sale with checkerboard micro-polarization patterns, where one pixel was polarized for one eye, the one to its right and the one underneath for the other eye, etc, like a chess board.

Even if the only way to present two full resolution images on the same display was to alternate them in time (flip, like field-sequential), it would still not imply that active glasses were a necessity. Just overlaying a Z-screen on top and the images, coming from the same monitor, changes polarization directions (or rotation) with each presented frame. If you want proof that with just one screen (or one projector) you can watch full resolution 3D w/o active glasses ... go to your local Real-3D or Dolby theater.

They use only one projector (which could be an LCD panel, altough in this case is a 3-DLP engine) and the show is watched with passive glasses.

And Z-screens are neither expensive or hard to manufacture in large sizes. Almost to the contrary.

And remember the vectograph from the 50's? A photograph you can watch in 3D with polarizing glasses. Both images superimposed in the same picture and with different polarization densities that turned into two different pictures when watched through linear glasses.

Heck, even Disney made a vectographic short film ... a 35mm film that, when projected on a regular, totally unmodified projector, threw a picture on the screen with two simulaneous images already polarized!!!! You just needed a silver screen and passive glasses and that (special) 35mm film did the whole job ... no need for special lenses/adapter in the projector (like in over/under) or different speeds or shutters (no "z-screens", no 144fps). Just any movie projector and a silver screen. And a vectographic 35mm film.

You held the 35mm film in your hands, put it against a light, wear your 3D glasses, and you could see each frame in 3D right there, just by looking at the piece of film. Both images integrated in the same "celluloid" and already polarized for each eye. And this was in the 50's, IIRC.

But hey, if you want active glasses, don't worry, they are also there
 

---

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 12-17-2008, 05:34 PM:
 
I have Spy Kids 3D and Sharkboy & Lavagirl on DVD, and have found the anaglyph 3D system is not that good. Aside from giving you a headache, the 3D effect is entirely dependent on the way your TV reproduces colors. If I watch it on the large flat-panel LCD downstairs, the 3D is minimal and the effects look a bit 'flat'. Watching on a CRT though, the 3D is much better. Perhaps CRTs reproduce colors more accurately?

I guess it depends on whether you want 3D as a bolt-on addition to existing TV systems, or if you want to create a whole new 3D system for the home. For existing TVs, the best option would be shutter glasses - but you'd need a way of synchronising the glasses to the TV. Besides, some TVs have a lower update rate that would completely ruin the 3D effect.

If 3D in the home seems feasible, the best way would be to completely redesign the TV and DVD system so that it can cope with 3D footage.

I've already seen a new kind of flat-panel screen that allows you to view stuff in 3D without glasses; it's a sort of lenticular system (like those 3D/moving postcards you can get). However, there are only certain places you can be relative to the screen to get the proper 3D effect. If you are in between those places, you'll see the images separating and the 3D will be ruined.
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-17-2008, 06:07 PM:
 

quote: Thomas Pitt

---

If I watch it on the large flat-panel LCD downstairs, the 3D is minimal and the effects look a bit 'flat'. Watching on a CRT though, the 3D is much better. Perhaps CRTs reproduce colors more accurately?

---

quote: Ron Funderburg

---

I realize that the film companies are totally in to 3d but it isn't that big of deal to me.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Indeed, most of the monitors (those that are virtually the same price as 2D equivalent, only about $10 more cost for the microretarder) use half the resolution for each eye. The odd lines present one image and the even lines the other.

---

This reminds me of those Mitsubishi RPTVs with a 960 X 1080 resolution DLP chip that rapidly "wobbulated" a 1080p image. Most or likely all 1080p flat panel plasma and LCD televisions have a truly native 1920 X 1080 pixel display, -no artificial tricks to create the image.

Depending on whatever approach ends up being used, I worry the same kind of artificial tricks will be used on Blu-ray movies with 3D capability. Worse, I'm concerned it will just be stuck on the general BD release rather than some separate 3D retail item (kind of like what some studios did with DTS DVDs).

The first concern needs to be presenting as high a level of image quality possible in 2D 1080p/24. I really think any 3D version of a movie on Blu-ray needs to be on a separate disc or in a separate retail package from the less compressed version in 2D 1080p/24. The recent release of Dark City was marred in a number of ways. Some contend the dynamic noise reduction "knob" was turned up to 11. I also think having two separate cuts of the movie on one BD-50 (which drastically increased compression requirements) also was a factor. Who knows? To get good results with home theater 3D we may need those 4 layer BD-100 discs to become a reality.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-18-2008, 12:21 AM:
 
Well, manufacturers, studios and broadcasters have been talking together on how to do this already. They created some "3D consortium" that is looking into the matter. A cable broadcaster in Japan has already been shooting out around 2 hours a day of stereo 3D content (Anime cartoons made in 3D ) for about 6 months now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369568,00.html

It seems that they haven't agreed on what blu-ray should do.

But it looks fairly good what they have thought up so far.

Basically, display devices would have two HDMI inputs, one for each eye. They would each need to be compatible with full 1080p content. HDMI today is very cheap and ubiquous.

Then, the display internal circuits are "free" to convert these two images to whatever they need to for their system (i.e. throw away the odd lines on one image and the even on the other, or calculate the amount of light per each color subpixel that needs to go to each eye for stacked panels, or intermix it up in a checkerboard pattern, or calculate the polarization density and predominant direction needed for each subpixel, etc).

That way, the display is free to use as much resolution as nativetly can support or resize (i.e. upscale 720p sources) images to the correct native resolution while preserving the "3D effect".

This hints that all the other devices, such as TV setop boxes (i.e. satellite decoders) and blu-ray players would need to be fitted with two HDMI outputs.

So yeah. If you want full-resolution-per-eye 3D, you need two HDMI inputs/outputs as, basically, one single HDMI standard input can not handle 1920x1080 times two.

Otherwise, the compromise that you guys talk about (i.e. half 1080p resolution) is needed for blu-ray players and other equipment that is not capable of "1920x2160" (two images of 1920x1080 each, which you could also call 1080p-48fps if you want).

But with current equipment, a "field-sequential" approach is possible. But not at full frame rates, as most current equipment is not >60p compatible.

And about using your current TV as a 3D device w/o using active glasses .... as I said, someone could just start selling large "z-screens" to hang in front of them. For both, already polarized LCD monitors which thus won't lose hardly any light ouput and would continue being 500nits or whatever they are now and for plasma displays, where unfortunately the z-screen would add a polarizing filter that would reduce the brightness of your plasma by 66%.

But you wouldn't need active glasses.

Please note that active glasses also have a very hard time fitting current TV's. They would suck also 66% (or more) light out of plasma TV's as LCS shutters are nothing more than two polarizing filters stuck in the middle of a type of z-screen. Then, each eye would only receive whatever light goes through this (30%) half the time (the other 50% of the time the eye would only see black), so the brightness is effectively reduced to half, like with a two-blade shutter.

And using active glasses with LCD's is tricky to. The LCD light is already polarized. So the shutters either can not be based on polarized LCS shutters (like this one http://www.liquidcrystaltechnologies.com/Tech_Support/OAS_Cell.htm) or the light would have to be depolarized prior to reaching the shutter or different glasses would need to be manufactured for different models of LCD TV's to take in account each manufacturer's orientation.

That's not mentioning that most current TV devices are hardly capable of even true (lag free, full contrast) 60fps rates, and that half of that per eye would mean a quite "flickering" 30hz shuttering artifact and temporal disparities.

So 3D in (most of) today's people's TV's means, at best, a compromised (i.e. dimm) picture of 30hz frame rate to be watched with glasses that would be somewhat "heavy" and require batteries. Welcome to field-sequential 3D of the 80's and 90's, upgraded to work with flat panels

But I fully agree that your average Joe is not interested on a 3D TV. He has his eye set on upgrading to that awesome 65" 10trillion-to-one contrast ratio he has seen for $6k. When it reaches $4k, he is jumping the gun 3D-or-not.

[ 12-18-2008, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-18-2008, 08:57 AM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

And remember the vectograph from the 50's?

---

They showed some vectograph 3D at the first film fest in LA. It was the Disney cartoon Melody, it was a little splicey and it had no soundtrack on it, although they ran the soundtrack in sync with it from another source at the festival. While there, I also heard that there are two frames of a test reel from Charge At Feather River that have survived. That (at least at the time) is all that has survived of the vectograph format.

I have to say that was cool to see. The 3D effect was pretty impressive all things considered. If I remember correctly, Jeff said that these prints were IB, and that the dye somehow provided the polarization. There was some slight ghosting in the images when you watched them, but hey... that was the 1950s. I think if they would have stuck with it, they surely could have fixed that by now.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-20-2008, 03:44 AM:
 
One day, even a single LCD panel would be able to display a 3D stereo pair with full resolution for each eye simultaneously and at the same time and exactly the same place pixel for pixel to be separated by plain passive polarizing (circular) glasses.

Can't figure out how it would work?

Simple, really. It's almost the same principle of the currently available iz3d monitor, which does all of the above using linear polarization, but with just one LCD panel instead of a sandwich of two

http://3dstereo.ru/Papers/3d_polarization_equation_e.pdf

And Broadcasters are starting to get the ball rolling as we speak. SKY just run its first 3D broadcast for the new systems:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdHS86kZ1mM

It's using the Hyundai 46" polarized flat panel LCD 3D TV on sale in Japan (aprox. $3500).

[ 12-20-2008, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-21-2008, 12:44 AM:
 
The issue is not the technological ability to do 3D, it's what the consumer is willing to pay for it.

Especially given the fact that the last couple of years have seen huge numbers of people get HDTV sets (a large percentage of which are only 720P but called HD anyway). Most people are not going to go out and get another new TV in then next 5 years just to watch a couple of movies in 3D.

When it is time to buy a new TV, if they can get, let's say a 42" 1080P 2D LCD set for $2000 or a 42" 1080P 3D LCD set for $3000, the VAST MAJORITY of people will go 2D.

The only way for 3D to catch on at home in large scale is for it to be a VERY cheap addition which can probably only be accomplished with field sequential 3D using active shutter glasses or possibly with the alternating line LCD that gives 3D at 1/2 resolution.

Personally I think that the studios and special event producers should keep 3D as a theatrical exclusive and try and maximize revenue that way. There probably isn't much profit in home 3D except maybe for premium PPV sporting events with $50 charges.

I don't think consumers will pay much more for a 3D version, they'll just expect it to be included on the blu-ray for free.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-21-2008, 01:33 AM:
 
The COST of a line-alternating 3D polarized monitor compared to the same 2D one model is, literally, $10 (a cheap piece of plastic retarder put in front).

Now, what the manufacturer may want to charge, or what patent holders may want to rip, that's another question.

At this very-very-very early point we can see they are asking for about 30% more than the 2D product. But that's because of the novelty and lack of competition.

At some point in the FAR future all the LCD flat panel TV's will be 3D. They only lose like under 7% of the light output and cost $10 more to manufacture (at basically any size). Without glasses, they look like ordinary 2D panels w/o further problems. So why not?

But first manufacturers will milk early adopters, of course.

Plus, as you said, average Joe is not interested in 3D (much less in paying for it) unless its kind of thrown in there for free or offers some spectaular SuperBowl-3D on a 65" flat panel Wondercontrast TV.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gkxI3qVOZ0p1en_zbURW7h5RpgYgD94SCOT00

But if you want to buy today and are hoping for a LCS shutter 3D solution in the future (or the present), I suggest you shoot for one of the newer models. This "240hz" tv could be a start ... unless the 240hz can not be disabled ...

http://www.engadgethd.com/photos/hands-on-with-sonys-240hz-kdl-52xbr7-9-9mm-klv-40zx1m-hdtvs/1018982/

I know we don't like DLP front or rear projection, but their 3D home system for active glasses is probably the best at the moment if you favor shutter glasses.

http://www.dlp.com/downloads/DLP%203D%20HDTV%20Technology.pdf

3-D for the home is here, and will stay. Not because of Hollywood, but because gamers like it and it's cheap and convinient.

Sony has said they would update the Playstation 3 firmware in 2009 to allow for stereoscopic gaming and blu-ray. The PS3 is quite a powerfull "multimedia" engine and can convert and process images faster than you can say 2D

This will probably drive the sale of 3D monitors/TV's a bit.

And some peeps in Hollywood are interested in seen this 3D-at-home happen. But they are always the same few (Dreamworks+Cameron ... lol).

[ 12-21-2008, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-21-2008, 12:20 PM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

The COST of a line-alternating 3D polarized monitor compared to the same 2D one model is, literally, $10 (a cheap piece of plastic retarder put in front).

---

quote:

---

But if you want to buy today and are hoping for a LCS shutter 3D solution in the future (or the present), I suggest you shoot for one of the newer models. This "240hz" tv could be a start [Wink] ... unless the 240hz can not be disabled ...

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

3-D for the home is here, and will stay. Not because of Hollywood, but because gamers like it and it's cheap and convinient.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I am skeptical of the claim that it is "cheap," much less even convenient. Where is some of this gear actually being sold and what are the list prices?

---

Skeptical is good

Iz3d 22" flat panel LCD passive linear polarized 1680x1050 (full resolution per eye) $350 including shipping in the USA:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=iz3d

Same monitor under $400 in you friendly local Staples store:

STAPLES

Now, let's go for the Zalman. Also 22", also 1680x1050, but only half resolution per eye in 3D mode. Circular polarized glasses. Around $650.

http://www.provantage.com/zalman-tech-trimonzm-m220w~7ZALM01Y.htm

http://www.buy.com/prod/zalman-zm-m220w-lcd-monitor-22-1680-x-1050-5ms-0-282mm-1000-1-black/q/loc/101/207919501.html

Dell sells it for much more ... don't know why, possibly the extended warranty: $780

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=A1997135&cs=04&c=us&l=en&dgc=SS&cid=27722&lid=628335

Now the Hyundais. They have two models, a 22", Pretty much the same as the Zalman above ($700 includes speakers) and a 24" full HD 1920x1080.

http://antaresdigital.com/customer/product.php?productid=18246&cat=0&page=26

If you want the full resolution 24" 1080p (1920x540 per eye when using 3D), circular polarized 3D you are gonna have to shell out $1250, but it's a pretty good monitor:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4238168&SRCCODE=GOOGL EBASE&cm_mmc_o=TBBTkwCjCVyBpAgf%20mwzygtCjCVRqCjCVRq

These are the specs: http://www.vrlogic.com/assets/downloads/3D_W220S_W240S_0825_web.pdf

If you want the 46" TV model, full HD 1920x1080, then you need to buy directly from Japan at a cost of aprox. $3700, as it's not for sale worldwide yet:

http://www.biccamera.com/bicbic/jsp/w/catalog/detail.jsp?JAN_CODE=0824314003331&sess=c9b04328e76f9c2da9f669fba2d01857

or import it through an intermediary. I've seen one shipping to the US, but the only one I can find now is out of stock and says "call" on the price.

All these monitors come with 2 or 3 pair of "good" plastic glasses or clip-on adapters.

About the COST of these monitors compared to a similar one in 2D ... yes, it's only $10 for a piece of plastic that the MANUFACTURER (not someone buying it) overlays on the monitor. If you have a hard time believing that $10 can buy any sheet of fairly large (say 50") plastic, take a look at this:

http://www.buy.com/prod/7-digital-photo-frame-by-gear-head-7dpf250-gear-head-7dpf250-digital/q/loc/111/208190174.html

For $38 you can have, delivered to your house, a 7" LCD screen, which includes in its manufacturing 2 sheets of polarizer, two sheets of aligned glass, the liquid crystal material, a color bayer filter, an transistor array layer, a fluorescent back light, a difusser filter, a power supply, electronics, memory, microprocessor, usb port, software, memory card reader, key-buttons & on/off switch, plastic surrounding frame, shipping box, printed manual, manufacturer-and-resaler-profit plus taxes and transportation to warehouse.

Now, how much do you think it COSTS to manufacture? And the microretarder filter I'm talking about is made of an extremely thin CELOPHANE film, which is manufatured by the yards for next to nothing to wrap candy for kids.

What I meant is that, for someone who already manufactures LCD monitors, to turn them 3D only COSTs them about $10 in materials. Size is almost irrelevant (within reason). Trust me. Intellectual property and other issues are a different matter.

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

DLP-based TVs have all but disappeared from electronics stores. When I walk through Best Best, Ultimate Electronics, Sears, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, etc. pretty much all I see is LCD-based flat panel TVs with perhaps a few plasma-based units thrown in for good measure.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I'm skeptical of Sony enabling 3D in the PS3 because in order to do it right the game console will have to render two camera/eye views instead of just one like it is doing now. That may be a lot to ask from the computing hardware.

---

Skeptical is good

The way it works, as it has always been with a long history of stereocopic gaming, is that you:

a) Calculate a scene at a HALF resolution to display "side-by-side"
b) The most common one: gaming can usually attain high frame rates, specially at low resolutions. So just like RealD/Dolby 3D, you run the game at say 48fps and alternate the views to 96hz, i.e..

In reality, the PS3 is fast enough to render games at 60fps. So on a 3D ready TV, just ouput one frame for one eye, and the next for the other. Let the display double that up to 120hz.

It's similar to current solution for 3D cinema. Servers can render 48fps with some restriction (higher compression/lower quality). Then, the "cables" (dual SDI) can only transfer 4:2:2 10 bits on one cable, and it needs to split the dual connection to two projectors, so there. Then the projectors turn this 48fps to "144fps". All the server needs to do is put out a (reduced resolution) 48fps and all is good.

All a PS3 has to do is run a game at (say) 60fps and alternate the views. Done. ATI, and specially Nvidia, have been doing this in their stereo drivers for Directx games for PC's (basically all the games in the PC market) for a long time. Long as in 20 years.

[ 12-21-2008, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-21-2008, 04:55 PM:
 
The monitors you referenced were computer monitors for 3D gaming. Gaming in 3D is a very different application than showing movies on home video in 3D. A PC or gaming console can be made to actively create the 3D content. That's not the case with pre-recorded movies with fixed frame rates.

It's also a major drawback to dump image resolution in half in order to do 3D (not to mention screwing up the 24fps footage into some 3:2 pull down 30fps crap). I won't buy anything that does that. It's doubtful many others will be willing to go along with it either.

I'll be surprised if we see full color 3D movies on Blu-ray anytime soon. I still think it's going to be at least another year or two bare minimum before any hardware and the even more important factor of 3D BD movies show up in stores.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-21-2008, 05:20 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The monitors you referenced were computer monitors for 3D gaming.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Gaming in 3D is a very different application than showing movies on home video in 3D. A PC or gaming console can be made to actively create the 3D content. That's not the case with pre-recorded movies with fixed frame rates.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

It's also a major drawback to dump image resolution in half in order to do 3D

---

Well, sort-of wrong again. The iz3d monitor displays the same resolution in both, 3D and 2D mode.

But anyway, if you want compatibility with current delivery media, such as field sequential DVD's, then it's unavoidable. There weren't designed to put out 48fps of full resolution material. Neither is blu-ray

So if the source can only give half the resolution, then it doesn't matter that the display does the same.

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

not to mention screwing up the 24fps footage into some 3:2 pull down 30fps crap). I won't buy anything that does that. It's doubtful many others will be willing to go along with it either.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I'll be surprised if we see full color 3D movies on Blu-ray anytime soon. I still think it's going to be at least another year or two bare minimum before any hardware and the even more important factor of 3D BD movies show up in stores.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

No movies on Blu-ray have ever been released in a true full color 3D version and it isn't going to happen for quite some time until the TV hardware can be made to do the job properly.

---

The display hardware can do it properly. It can do full color, any scan rate, simultaneous passive polarized 3D, with no temporal disparities or flicker. One of the technologies even has the same resolution in 2D and 3D. And all the DLP HD TV's available for under $2000 that I listed plus those from Mitsubishi can do full resolution-per-eye HD 3D today (but with shutter glasses).

You have it wrong. It's not the hardware to DISPLAY the movies that have any practical limitation. It can be made to have full HD resolution per eye. It's current Blu-ray players that can not output full HD at 48fps, nor would such a signal "fit" through the HDMI cable. Therefore, there is no need for the displays to support 2x1080p resolution (one per eye), when just about nothing supplies or demands such resolution.

But it could be made and the iz3d is already same-resolution-per-eye, although being a 22", it's only 1650x1050 (per eye). The 24" and 46" are 1920x540 per eye (1920x1080 total). A scope movie in many brand-new digital theaters can be, depending on the configuration ... 1998x850 ... pretty close

Only thing lacking, again, are new blu-ray players capable of ouputing full HD at 48fps. And the 3D movies on discs

The blu-ray consortium is not going to allow current players to become obsolete, so I guess they'll devise some standard where current players can output half-resolution-per-eye images and newer ones, with updated HDMI standards+faster decoders+faster bit rates, the full one. This, indeed, would take years.

Also, the amount of information that fits on a blu-disc at full resolution is limited. Fitting a full-resolution stereo 3D movie is basically the same as fitting two movies in one disc, one for each eye. It will pbbly have to be compressed much more to fit and use all available space for the movie (i.e. no extras, behind-the-scenes or wide choice of soundtracks).

You know the physics. Twice the information in the same space (in the same disc)=half the "quality". Or the same "quality" but half the resolution. Roughly.

But anyway. It all boils down to wanting or not to believe that 3D at home can be "cheap", "convenient", and "good" or not.

I believe it can, and that as soon as there is a market for it (i.e. Hollywood starts shooting out 3D movies on blu-ray discs), then the manufacturers will be ready to respond.

The showstopper right now seems to be making a blu-ray standard that is also good for the broadcasting industry to push two images through existing equipment (neccesarily at half-resolutions) while allowing newer equipment to use full (effectively double) resolution.

The moment the market demands a great and cheap 3D tv (flat, as you said) .... it will be there within "a week". If not already.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/10/02/philips-reveals-56-inch-quad-full-3d-hdtv-in-hollywood

If you believe that home 3D movies are years and years away and will require bulky active shutter glasses and will work with current equipment (or at least with current 1080x30p or 1080x60i blu-ray players and current 50GB blu-ray discs) w/o compromises to the quality, and that all is needed is some super-fast-switching flat panel display (like the 240hz models I pointed to), well, that's your prerogative.

But don't forget to do the math. 24x2 is 48, which is greater than 30p supported by blu-ray. And 60i means half the resolution per field. And 60 is not a multiple of 24 ... and we know you don't like pull-downs. So blu-ray/HDMI, as it is speced now, it's not suitable for full-res, double 1080-24p (48p) stereo images. The display is irrelevant. But Blu-ray can do half horizontal res 24p (48p when both halves are taken together) pretty well. And the displays to support that in 3D are plenty and cheap and are here TODAY. Other manufacturers, such as LG, have also announce 3D monitors for 2009, which starts in a couple of weeks

As you said, Hollywood (or the Canadians ... think Imax 3D) haven't marketed a (double or single) HD resolution, non-anaglyphic blu-ray disc out yet. So the manufacturers don't feel the rush to come out with 3D TV's yet. Hyundai has been the first with their 46", but because in Japan a broadcaster is puting out 2 hours of 3D programming a day and SKY TV has "commited" to London's Olympics being in 3D in 2012.

The rest of the industry centers on 3D Gamers, which is their big market now. They can also do 3D movies perfectly fine, but since there are not many of those in suitable format (about a dozen field-sequential movies on DVD commercially out there), that's the least of their worries. All monitors above support perfect, fullest resolution per eye (the term in the industry is Stereo resolution) 3D on existing titles. They would also support 3D blu-ray titles with current limitation of half-stereo resolution. Whenever that happens. Which may be sooner than you think since Dreamworks have said they want their movies on 3D on DVD ASAP and are pushing SMPTE for a standard. Panasonic is pushing the Blu-ray consortium too to adopt their blu-ray's 3D format.

It will all be there. If it's not there already.

[ 12-22-2008, 03:29 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-22-2008, 03:32 AM:
 
From the iz3d website

quote:

---

Display Resolution: 1680 x 1050

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

The 24" and 46" are 1920x540 per eye (1920x1080 total)

---

quote: Chris Slycord

---

The iz3d website has no mention of any version other than the 22" one. And I'd presume giving you a full, 1080p version would only increase the price even more ($350 being for the 22" that doesn't do it).

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Read the post again to find out about the 1920x1080 24" or 46". They are Hyundai, not iz3d.

---

quote: Gabriel Madway, Reuters

---

Dolby's home 3-D technology is designed so viewers would not be required to buy additional hardware, he said. It would work on any 3-D enabled TV -- currently available from companies including Mitsubishi and Samsung -- with a standard Blu-ray player.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

I guess we don't have to worry for lack of fast home flat TV's able to outdo TI's 144fps refresh rates.

LG's selling their 480hz flat panels in the US on the second half of the year.

---

And you don't have to wait for them to do it, either. When I visited my folks in Seattle over Christmas, the Kirkland Costco was selling HDTVs that did 480 Hz.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-09-2009, 05:36 AM:
 
I agree with steve 100%.

Gaming market: 3D has some near-term future.

3D movie market: It's a catch 22. People would need TONS more 3D content to justify purchasing another (3D) TV. No matter what they say, "current" TV's are mostly not suitable to GOOD 3D. They can do 3D, but with compromises on flicker/resolution/etc.

For a 3D home "viewing" market to catch up, we would need AT LEAST:

-Some 30 or so 3D titles available in blu-ray. They would necessarily be at half-resolution as current blu-ray players cannot output 1080p48fps

-Some not very geeky (i.e. no shutter glasses) and not very expensive display method with excellent results and little compromises (i.e. no flicker). Current TV's are mostly not up to this task. A new TV would have to be purchased.

Hollywood will not release 3D titles until a good standard and enough equipment is out there, and people will not buy 3D Tv's in volume until there are movies available. Maybe if some hotshot satellite or cable TV company would start a 3D channel full of new content (sport/gameshows/movies) it could kick-start the adoption of 3D displays. It's being done in Japan, so maybe it'll work out.

People into gaming love the 3D. And gaming consoles have little difficulty adapting to whatever standards you want, as they are flexible and re-configurable, and most games are already (basically) "3D" to begin with. It doesn't cost hardly anything to do 3D gaming. Again, a set of standards would be useful, but not as critical as with the movie industry.

3D in theaters would bring revenue to the producers of made-for-3D "B" movies, which otherwise wouldn't have done so well at the boxoffice if made 2D only. Read valentine 3D, journey to the center, etc. This is like in the 80's, with independents and their distributors making a killer with sub-par stuff like "Treasure of the four crowns", APE, Flesh for Frankenstein, etc

The difference is that in the 80's you just needed to equip the theater with a cheap 3D lens adaptor and a silver screen if you already didn't have one. A couple $1000's at worse. The exhibitor was able to cheaply and quicly benefit from the 3D "craze".

Now you have to change the entire booth to digital ($100k+) and, if you already have digital, still need a high gain screen plus not-so-cheap (one way or another) 3D "adapters" (several $1000's more or royalties). So while studios and distributors and manufacturers and 3D "operators" benefit, exhibitor are left with the larger part of the bill and maintenance/operation expenses (silver screen, labor to handle/clean/replace glasses, etc).

I believe that a "hit" movie (animation or not) would only bring a modest amount of extra business from 3D than from 2D IF the ticket price was the same. Perhaps a 10% increase in actual increased attendance. A non-hit "cheap" made-for-3D movie obviously will do much better business in 3D than 2D, perhaps to the point of becoming a blockbuster only for the 3D novelty.

Since it seems an additional 20-30% ticket price increase is allowable by the public for 3D, then this figure is further increased, of course.

But when you factor exhibition costs for the 3D (higher lamp usage, glasses management, 3D equipment and screen maintenance, etc) it becomes clear most of the profit goes to the distributor, to whom the cost of distributing 2D or 3D is virtually the same, and the studio, whose cost to shoot in 3D in this age of digital is only a fraction of the total cost of the 2D film.

And as soon as 3D takes off, if ever, home TV technologies will quickly even surpass those that can be obtained in a theater.

So I remain exceptical not on 3D in the movie industry but on EXHIBITOR's true profit in the 3D movie industry (mostly speaking of a exhibitor that does film currently, not digital already).

Adoption of digital in Europe is slow in general, in spite of some goverment grants and stuff and having a big player right here (Barco). 3D adoption is even slower.

I'll say it over and again. If studios and distributors want digital 3D in theaters, the solution is easy: have distributors purchase huge amounts of equipments from manufacturers at much lower prices and lease them to movie theaters at or below cost. Done. Just with the savings in print-striking costs they'll turn a profit in a few years.

Alternatively, distributors could offer a 5 year contract no-questions-asked to exhibitors to which they were willing to strike a film print for. Play my movie digital instead of 35mm for 2 weeks and I'll give you a $1000 automatic discount. No questions asked. How hard is that? It's not like they'll be losing any money or anything. The cost of printing/transporting/warehousing/destroying prints etc surely would be greater.

I just don't get it. Everybody benefits from digital a lot except exhibitors who only benefit a little (some potential labor costs, mostly offset by higher maintenance). But nobody pays for digital 1 cent except exhibitors to whom everybody (TI, christie-nec-sony-barco, realD-dolby, integrators-dealers) wants to rip-off at "full-retail", unless you are an ass-big chain that can afford your own deal.

And cinedigm is no better. They are up to make money also, so it's not like they are giving to the poor (exhibitor) while taking from the rich (distributors). They are also keeping part of the deal which otherwise could go to exhibitor.

Something is wrong here. Why would a movie theater in their right mind want to do a digital change over under these conditions? $100k in hardware would cover labor costs of a projectionist for quite a few years ... time in which the digital equipment is going to break-down or become obsolete and hard to maintain, demanding another >$20k investment which would once again cover another year of labor ...
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-09-2009, 08:54 AM:
 
Julio,

I agree with you, mostly. However, as for "full-retail." That is incorrect. I can't imagine how much cheaper the "big-3" could make their projectors. As compared to the A/V market, DCinema machines are CHEAP.

Seriously. Compare a 2K A/V projector to a DCinema version of equivalent lumen output. The DCinema projector is going to be cheaper. The A/V projector is going to have more flexible inputs rather than the dual-HDSDI and dual DVI but other than that, the DCinema projector is a bargain. Heck, we are a Sanyo dealer and a Christie Dealer. I can quote you a Christie CP2000-M for about $5K LESS than a Sanyo PLV-HD2000. The Sanyo is only 7000 lumens, has less than 1/2 the contrast ratio, many times the lamp cost (takes 4 lamps...they add up) and is using LCD technology, not DLP or even LCoS. I can't imagine Sanyo selling many, if any of these.

So as to DCinema projector (or even other parts of it), their prices are on the low side for their industries. They are just significantly higher than for film based systems. And any realistic projection of lifetime, costs, film systems are significantly cheaper.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-12-2009, 09:11 AM:
 
Yeah. "High end" non-DCI projectors are priced as "high end" devices. After all, who needs a +5m movie screen in their homes? Those who can be coaxed to PAY for it, of course.

A lot has to do with the volume of production runs and the size of the companies (and their execs' salaries' checks), obviously.

So anyway, digital is so far kind-of-expensive for the cinema exhibitor. Figure a 5 screen 35mm multiplex already fully automated with ELF's etc and changing over to digital could cost +$400k with a 3D screen. This change, perhaps, would save the salary of 1 dedicated projectionist.

Now, $400k+ would cover him for quite a few years, say 10. Also, maintenance could potentially be higher. Certainly so after 10 years, so another +$40k would be expected in technical services in that amount of time, once again offsetting the salary of a projectionist for another year or so.

So after 11 years you are left with paid equipment that COULD start to produce you some savings in labor costs. But after all that time I'm pretty sure most of it would be obsolete enough so that you seriously want to consider upgrading to the new 4K ultra-bright 3D projectors that your competitors are touting around, putting you down for another +$250k digital upgrade ...

Anyway. Back to 3D DVD. This from a news piece on CES 2009:

"Panasonic is already calling for a quick transition to 3DTV with a standard in 2009 and products in 2010. That would mean re-spinning the Blu-ray chips to support the multi-view coding version of H.264 compression and updating the firmware to handle things like graphics and subtitles over stereo 3-D video.

But even Panasonic knows that's pretty optimistic. The industry is still fragmented over the kind of format, display technology and glasses (if any) it wants for stereo 3-D. And my colleague David Benjamin pointed out that the 3-D content still leaves something to be desired.

So, expect 2010 to be the first year companies try to reap some substantial profits on today's Blu-ray while they hold off a move to Blu-ray 2.0: The 3-D Experience until at least 2011. After all, people who have had a round of bad luck, tend to be cautious. You hear about that sort of thing here in Vegas."
 

---

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 01-14-2009, 04:57 PM:
 
Anaglyph 3D can be done pretty well on DVD in the right hands and if displayed on a decent quality, properly calibrated monitor. The best I have seen yet is the "WORLD 3-D FILM EXPO I DVD". I believe a wizard named Daniel Symmes was the technical guru behind this. The related event was promoted by Jeff Joseph who is not a stranger to many of us here. If you are interested you can get more info and/or order a copy here:

http://www.3dfilmfest.com/WORLD_3D_FILM_EXPO_I_DVD.html
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-14-2009, 06:27 PM:
 
Because the 3-D version is already out of print on DVD, I decided to get the BD version of JOURNEY TO THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH in 3-D before that too become unavailable. I rented the 3-D DVD from Blockbuster when it was released and the effects was not bad at all and that is the reason I had decided to buy the BD hoping it will be better in H.D,. I saw the movie in a theatre in Real D and was entertained by it and although the picture was a bit dark in 3-D, I thought it was fantastic.. I felt it was worth having because I know I will want to watch it again when I get a high definition set very soon.

-Claude

-
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-15-2009, 03:12 PM:
 
Here is a recent article mentioning some of the stuff we have been talking about here (polarized flat panels vs shutter glasses and fast flat panels):

Reflections on CES: 3-D galore, The Beach's end, Gibson blues


The author basically gives his impression by going back and forth from a 120hz 3D enabled flat panel (shutter glasses) and a polarized one (passive glasses). He preferred the second choice.

Anaglyph can be done quite ok with lots of care, specially in blu-ray. On DVD, it's a compromise in resolution, due to the color subsampling. It can work particularly well for black and white content.

I remember one Laserdisc that had great anaglyph 3D. It was a black and white (canadian, I think) movie called The Mask.

But anaglyph is always light-years away from any other system, be it field-sequential DVD's (of which there are a couple of 10's in the market) or any other delivery method (except "Pulfrich" 3D gimmiks).

Another piece:

3D is coming to a living room near you

The article speaks on how new 3D enabled flat panel TV's hardly cost anything more than current TV's and manufacturers expect to lure consumers into purchasing them. Good luck with that.

And another thing we talked about: Playstation3 in 3D

http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2009/01/07/ces-2009-sony-teases-with-high-quality-ps3-3d

which Sony demoed in a flat panel, polarized, non-shutter glasses monitor on CES2009.

Actually, Sony cheap'ed-out and decided to use the very same RealD glasses they stole from a movie theater to show the 3D demos ...

[ 01-16-2009, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 01-18-2009, 07:49 PM:
 
I was just going to post that same cnet link. I am in the market for a flat panel for our house and went on cnet to see what kind was best and read up on them since it is all Greek to me.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-12-2009, 01:46 PM:
 
It is really weird that you can get pirated 2xHD (i.e. two full color 1080p) movies off the internet (720p versions widely available h264 recompressed) and play them back in full 3D glory in your 3D monitor and yet you can't buy it legally in (some variation of 3D) blu-ray.

There goes the "3D can't be pirated" etc. At least two very recent mayor 3D movies in "good" (non-anaglyphic) dual-view 3D pirated already in HD pirated "for free".

Your usual disclaimer that I do not condone piracy and this statement is only meant to make a point that: A) 3D at home in HD is possible today (although not legally) and B) 3D won't stop piracy much, if at all, specially given enough time if it ever becomes popular enough.

Here is one way to get it legally until the blu-ray people sort their mess out.

http://www.next3d.com/NEXT_3D.html

The link is for a company that offer 3D content if you have an Xbox 360 hooked up to a 3D monitor (via regular HDMI).

quote:

---

Next3D content providers include rights holders to spectacular films originally produced for IMAX® 3D theaters, classic 3D films, and 3D movie trailers. We’re also partnering with producers and studios to create 3DHD Television distributed via Next3D and venues that provide live 3D camera feeds.

In addition to commercial content, Next3D will offer user-generated content channels, making it easy for anyone to post and share 3D video and still images.

---