Saw this on Blu-Ray.com. A few sites are running the same news.

Here's hoping that the PS3 can be updated to do this through software.

Doesn't sound like the current TVs will work, so who knows when this might actually be available.

And then they'd have to release Blu Rays with this new 3D. They'll also have to release current titles like Coraline. I'm glad I have no interest in this, just seems too costly at this point to upgrade everything to watch 3D, then to only put it to use a few times. I honestly don't see what all the hype is, even after seeing stuff like Coraline at the theater. Maybe Cameron's Avatar will change that. I don't have high hopes it will though.

After 1.0, 1.1 and 2,0 they found a way to get you to buy yet another Blu-ray player...pass. 3D is a gimmick.

Dont' forget your HDMI v 1.4 to go with that.

Unlikely. 3-D will require HDMI 1.4.

I couldn't care less about a 3D feature for movies. I wish they would stop pushing this so much, honestly.

Of course they're going to find new ways to entice people to buy new players. It's how they stay in business. It's the exact same model they have always followed with televisions, DVD players, CD players, VHS, Beta, cassette tape decks, LP turntables, A/V receivers, and even cell phones.

How, exactly, is this new feature (which isn't gimmicky to me, any more than 3D presentations in theaters are) a reason to single out Blu-ray for criticism, as opposed to the electronics industry as a whole, as it has worked for the past 40-50 years?

+1

Dumb feature.

Wear an eye patch for a week and then let me know how not important stereoscopic vision is. Or maybe see more than a theme park movie in 3-D before making the call. Ever seen INFERNO, MISS SADIE THOMPSON, HONDO, or I THE JURY in polarized 3-D? Didn't think so. All 3-D movies are not gimmick fests or theme park movies with the Muppets.

In any case, those of you who want to watch the 3-D movies flattened out will always have the opportunuity to do so. You will save money by not buying a new TV or glasses, and can wait a few weeks to see the flat showings at a theater at a reduced cost to you, so why all the negativity? Nothing is being forced on you, enjoy your old compromised flat versions.

Why is it necessary to constantly thread cap? It's like Norma Desmond going on about the talkies. It's like the black bar haters going on about how horrible widescreen is, when they can simply crop, stretch and distort away with their remotes if they want.

That's what is so good about the new standard: it's your choice. 3-D or flat/2-D at the touch of a button. Everyone should be happy.

^^^^

Because 3D is really not a natural evolution in storytelling IMO. It's a gimmick. Ooh, look at the flying thing coming at my head - ahhh!

Up didn't need 3D to be a compelling film. That goes for any decent film. 3D is there to sell tickets to families.

"Talkies" helped expand storytelling in films through the ability to hear the actors. Widescreen aspect ratios helped augment how directors visualize and present their vision.

When an Oscar-worthy film uses 3D in a meaningful way, I'll start to reconsider my opinion. For now, gimmick gimmick gimmick.

I will say I could see the 3D gear being desirable for gaming. But not for cinema.

Fixed for you.

A 3-D Oscar winning film? No problem! HONDO won an Oscar in 1953!

Thankfully, "hacks" like Steven Speilberg, Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Guillermo del Toro, and Robert Zemeckis are all converted to the 3-D cause so things are looking up.

I direct you to some of the movies I mentioned above to see how 3-D was used to enhance a film. Watching them in polarized 3-D, you might just be enlighted.

Do movies NEED color? Stereo Sound? Nope. Thousands of good movies were made in black and white and/or mono.

We see in color, three dimensions, and hear in directional sound. Why can't movies replicate that in some (not all) instances?

If you do a bit of research, you find tons of articles back in the day from critics that hated sound, color, widescreen and directional sound, dismissing them as distractions and gimmicks.

Lots of bad movies have been made in color, widescreen and stereo sound. But that doesn't mean other directors used all of these effectively to further their own cinematic vision.

As for that stupid comment about people not being able to watch features in 3-D...is this person not aware there have been 39 3-D feature length movies released since 2004? What about all the IMAX documentaries? The dozens of 3-D features in production? This third 3-D boom has already lasted far longer than the one in the 1953-54 or the mini revival in the 1980's and shows no signs of peaking. 3-D showings sell more tickets than the flat showings of the same movies by a large margin.

I will hold off criticism until I see exactly how this is implemented and marketed. My only real concern is adding to the already confusing feature-set of Blu-ray, HDTVs and HDMI connectivity.

My only interest in this technology is if it provides the opportunity, by some miracle, to see the 3-D version of Dial M For Murder. I'm not holding my breath.

3D sucks because it makes a lot of peoples' eyes hurt. Virtual Boy didn't work, and neither will this...

So what? A player's gonna cost like $500? the disc $40 each? and then for a projector $12,000?

Pass, I'm not a fan of 3D anyway, and I can't affored to upgrade.

No need for 3D in my book either

DIAL M FOR MURDER was released in field sequential 3-D by Warner in Japan 20 years ago, and copies have been out there ever since. I've seen it theatrically in polarized 3-D three times, and while it is an enhancement no doubt, it's one of the flatter looking 3-D movies ever. Hitch kept the depth to a minimum and amped it up only once or twice. Few peple ever saw it in 3-D until many years later. But I'd bet that this would be one of the first classic 3-D movies to get released, along with HOUSE OF WAX. It won't take a miracle.

There is already a large number of recent 3-D movies waiting in the wings, and add to that some of the older ones which will surely be put out also, and you won't be in want of product. Even some flat movies are being dimensionalized for re-issue and/or home release (and I know that starts a whole other battle ala colorization that we can save for another day).

One thing that has helped convert many are stereo still pictures. I've got several stereo cameras (new and old) and have shot thousands of stereo pics. People see them and their jaws just drop and how they capture real life in a way their flat snap shots never could. These aren't gimmicky shots, just pictures of nature, the family, the pets- they can't stop talking about how the addition of the stereoscopic aspect as seen in nature enhances many of these pics.

It's just a technology like any other- the use to whichit is put is determined by the people using it. Some movies use color or widescreen in an amazing, creative way, while others are just movies that happen to be in color or widescreen. The same is true of 3-D.

Bottom line though, again: You can always just sit this out and watch flat. No need to participate. Just like you can choose to not buy an HDTV and keep watching in SD.

As for "adult" movies....there has already been quite a few of them produced in 3-D!

No one is talking about a huge price increase for players, TVs or discs. The market will not allow it. It's just an evolution, and in some cases, possibly a firmware update may do it. Many HDTVs on the market now are already 3-D ready. You many have one and not know it.

The hurting the eyes thing is mostly overblown. Proper photography and projection cures this. Certainly the anaglyphs can cause issues, myself included. And considering the 3-D showings of movies continue to outsell the flat versions in theaters (as much as 6-1 ratio in favor of 3-D); then obviously "most" people don't seem to have a problem.

Again, if you don't like it, don't watch in 3-D!

You shot who with the what now?

Right. It is a gimmick, a very expensive gimmick. If done right, it might be nice, we'll see once AVATAR comes out.
Steven Spielburg has shot one movie in 3D, and he has others lined up that will be shot in plain old 35mm film. And he wanted to do a completely CGI film like "The Polar Express" and "Monster House", using performance capture. 3D was just a bonus for him. He's always said that he will never shoot a live action film digitally. Del Toro's never shot in 3D, neither has Jackson. They might have expressed interest, but neither of them have actually done it yet. Robert Zemeckis is more interested in the digital performance capture tech then 3D, much like Spielburg. But, every animated movie coming out is released in 3D so why should he be the exception. Zemeckis has even said that 3D is not appropriate for a lot of films. James Cameron as we all know is gaga over 3D.

Really? The market allowed $1,000 Blu-ray players so what's stopping them from starting that over for the new 3D Feature? I doubt many people here will upgrade nearly everything for 3D. I certainly won't be.

I'm not against it at all, and I actually look forward to having it someday. However, I have little interest right now because there just aren't many movies I'd want. My interest in blockbuster movies has waned over the years, and those will likely make up the bulk of what will be released. I'm not in a hurry to upgrade for a handful of movies per year that I'd actually want to watch. I think it will be one of those things I just get when I upgrade for other reasons.

All of the directors I mentioned have gone on record many times stating that they will are pro-3-D for the right projects. All of them have 3-D projects in devolpment. Will they all go 3-D only? I doubt it.

How long did those $1000 blu-ray players stay at that price? No 3-D capable player will become mainstream until prices come down to a normal level, this is obvious.

Who thinks everyone will immediately upgrade to 3-D? No one does. I won't until the price is right, but then I've had decent quality field sequential 3-D at home since the VHS days. We're talking about adding the technology to the players and TVs at a phase in level; eventually all players and TVs on the market will have it. Whether or not to utilize the feature will be up to the consumer. I seem to remember the first DVD players not even having a progressive scan feature; but now that's standard. Did everyone carry on about how they shouldn't phase the tech into the players because that first player couldn't do it? Did it stop 2.0 Blu-ray players from being phased in when lost of people still have 1.1 players?

Again, if you don't want 3-D, you don't HAVE to do anything but keep watching flat movies!