Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

It's a gimmick that Hollywood is desperately hoping catches on, to resell all their movies in 3-D and get people into theaters. I do not see the attraction, as the technology is just not good enough yet as a mass medium for home content.

I worry about the cheaper studios trying to fit multiple encodes on one disc, compromising the video quality.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

You base this on what? Have you seen the new format in person?

Gimmick must work because the studios keep throwing 3D movies out.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

I am excited about the possibility of real 3D at home. I will jump on a new tv as long as it is not much more than a 2D counterpart.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

I'm a little concerned about that too. Even though it won't be twice as much space, it could still limit the quality. You won't get those occasional 40Mbps peaks for one 2D image any more.

In the end, I hope they decide to put the 3D version on a separate disc, maybe even a separate SKU. Although, the latter wouldn't appeal to people who want to buy one version and be done with it.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

Putting the 3D and 2D on different discs will simply mean people would be more likely to sell off whatever version they don't want. Studios (i.e. Universal) are already not happy about giving away a Digital Copy or even a DVD and they won't provide a 2D/3D BD version that could be resold/gifted. I can see in some cases they may have no choice (runtime, like Titanic) but this will likely be 2 versions of the film packed on a BD50. I smell trouble coming. All the whining about 30GB HD DVDs not being 'enough space' and we may be stuck with less.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

Yeah, but had this been done with HD DVD we REALLY would be screwed. ;)

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

You don't think they'll do an encode with both "eyes," and you just choose one of them for the 2D version? That's the way it would take up about 1.5x the space.

2 separate encodes would suck for many movies. Since the 3D version takes about 1.5x the space, it would be like cramming 2.5 encodes on one disc.

BTW, Titanic is not a 3D movie. I hope they don't start applying fake 3D to existing 2D movies.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

Sure, if we ignore that we could have had a 51GB disc if HD DVD was still around (let me just state that's IF)

It does matter. That's additional space that's being used on the disc that could have gone to the encode. That 50GB disc is now essentially a 20GB disc (If we go with 2.5x and ignoring that 50GB is not really 50GB plus any special features...so like 16GB an encode? Plus Lossless track(s)?) Me no like. Hopefully they just sell the 3D version by itself and a higher price.

Last I read, Titanic was being re-done in 3D. Did that change? I read several other films (Dawn of the Dead '78) were as well.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

Whoops.

Sure, and IF I bought stock in Google when it first went public I'd be a richer man today.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

Well, Toy Story and other CG animation is completely different, as everything existed in 3D space in the computer. They can re-render the whole thing to look like it was 3D all along.

I'm just skeptical of live-action movies like Titanic, where the visual information is all 2D. It strikes me as akin to colorization.

I know they're doing something with Beauty and the Beast, but I imagine that even with that, they can scan the character cells separately from the backgrounds and make the top layer stand out.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

What's the largest amount of space a video encode on BD has taken? What's the average amount of space a video encode takes up?

The original article states a 50% overhead, so it's 1.5x larger. So if you're assuming the video encode takes up the whole disc (no audio or special features), it would be like reducing a 50GB disc to 33GB, or still more space than on an HD DVD, which many people considered to have more than enough space to house a quality encode.

And 30GB was not really 30GB. What's your point?

You're assuming the special features wouldn't be moved to a 2nd disc for these titles.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

you can't move commentaries and PiP to a second disc. Granted, audio commentaries take up little to no space... it's the video commentaries, and stuff like "Maximum Movie Mode" (Watchmen, etc.) that would probably get shelved.

For me, if it's a choice between "fake" 3D and a well-done interactive commentary, I'll choose the commentary.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

All depends on the studio and what encode they use (VC1/MPEG4 - ignoring MPEG2). We've seen some take as little as 12GB to look 'good' and up to 40GBish. I think AVS keeps track of sizes for certain titles.

3GB more space. People were complaining about HD DVDs 30GB disc (when Uni/Warner used VC1 which is more compression over MPEG4 - Warner is the only 'big' studio to still use VC1 with some exceptions by Universal). Dumping a 90 minute movie on a 50GB disc in both 2D and 3D might work, but what about films that are 2+ hours? Either they will hurt the 2D encode or make both suffer. Which is why separate SKU's makes sense, but retailers won't stand for another format.

Wonderful. Which negates the whole purpose of a 50GB disc which was also touted as having all (or most) special features on one disc. I still remember that being a key reason for why Blu-ray was better back in the format war (Clockwork Orange)

So now we may have this Frankenstein:
Disc 1 - 2D/3D
Disc 2 - Special Features
Disc 3 - DVD and/or DC (if they go combo like Warner has)
Disc 4 - DVD and/or DC (possible)

or
Disc 1 - 2D
Disc 1 - 3D
Disc 3 - DVD and/or DC (if they go combo like Warner has)
Disc 4 - DVD and/or DC (possible)

So not only do studios see an increase in BD50's being used (possible to make the second Special Features disc a BD25, of course), but bigger cases which cost more money. Bigger cases mean less shelf space to stock additional copies/titles.

Who do you think that cost will get passed on to?

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

I think you're confused about how the technology will work. There won't be two separate transfers on the disc. There will be one transfer, consisting of the image for one eye as the main AVC encode (and 2D version image), with an MVC extension for the 2nd eye image. Think of it along the lines of an AVC "core" and MVC extension, similar to how DTS and DTS-HD work on a BD.

It may have been touted by some, but they were likely misguided or just overenthusiastic. More space simply means more space. It doesn't mean that everything ever will all fit on one disc.

I have that now with my Up BD/DVD/DC combo (although disc 1 is only the 2D feature). The case isn't any bigger, and the price certainly wasn't prohibitively high.
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/38707/up/

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

But that still means additional space used towards a 3D version that very few people will use. Space is space.

And that is certainly one example. Disney has released other 'fat' cased BDs that use more plastic (Bolt, Jonas Brothers etc). Fox has with some of their BD TV releases. Up is going to be an exception given its time frame when released and the amount of coupons/discounts that were thrown at it for Q4 hype (price-wise).

We are now almost past Q4 hype where prices have gone up up up. Will studios charge more for the films that include 3D versions? Only time will tel, but I'm willing to bet 'yes'. I'm already passing on any BD release that is over $20 (except BD TV releases) thanks to be conditioned in Q4.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

The same could be said about any special feature though. For example, I haven't viewed the "Maximum Movie Mode" on the Watchmen BD, which means that, for me, the space that special feature used could've been used for the feature instead.

I agree that disc space will have to be considered very carefully for discs that add this feature. However, I don't agree with the assertions that this feature will automatically cause the video for the 2D version to suffer, or that an optional 3D version is inherently worse than any other special feature provided.

The Bolt BD is fatter? I hadn't noticed; it looks approximately the same size on my shelf.

The Coraline BD already has both 2D and 3D anaglyphic versions of the film (which are two separate transfers on one disc), and it didn't retail for any more than any other Universal release.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

But that's a Special Feature. I personally no longer really care about Special Features. I just don't have the time to watch them anymore. But space being given towards Special Features is already a given and has been for 10+ years on DVD. I don't know how the studio does it, but I can only guess they set the movie encode to a certain size and then fit whatever they can Special Feature-wise on the disc. Anything that over flows gets a second disc, forgotten, or tossed onto a second disc. That's only a guess. And Special Features generally take up very little room unless they are HD.

Universal also used a VC1 for Coraline which uses less space over MPEG4. Plus, I don't think that crappy 3D takes up enough room on the disc. I could be wrong of course as I have no way of checking.

Yes and no. When it came out, several Disney BDs had two different cases - one fat and one 'normal'. Reviewers all got Fat, and at the same time, Fat and 'Normal' went to stores. Slip covers either fit really snug or not at all.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

An an optional 3D version isn't? It's how the 3D version of Coraline is catagorized as.

So you're fine with other Special Features taking up to 50% of video size on a disc, since they've done that in the past, but a new special feature doing the same is somehow abhorrent?

Do you know how much space the special features are actually taking up on your discs?

Do you have any proof for this assertion?

Even if VC1 is more efficient, it would have to be 33% more efficient for the 2 transfers on Coraline to equal the proposed 1.5x size of the AVC encode (assuming both transfers of are equal quality).

DVD Beaver lists the 2D transfer as about 20GB, while the 3D transfer is 17GB:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...ne_blu-ray.htm

That's a total of 37GB, with the 3D version taking up 45% of the space, compared to Blu-ray 3D, where the extra image for 3D is only 30% of the space. If the 2D version on the new MVC version was 20GB, then the 3D extension would only be 10GB, freeing up 7GB for additional special features. Alternatively, if we allocate the same overall space to the video, the 2D MVC version would be about 25GB, with an average bitrate of 20.98Mbps, or about 25% larger.

So in terms of BDs where a 3D version is going to be included anyway, the new B3D format will likely be of better image quality for both the 2D and 3D versions.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

No, 3D requires the purchase of a 3D Blu-ray player, 3D TV and 3D Glasses. Crappy 3D does not. I don't want the new format crap taking away from my experience.

Unless it was a massive amount of extras, typically the film takes up the most space. But as I said, they probably do the average encode first and then plan the SF size. I've seen Warner take stuff that was meant to be HD content and make it SD to fit on the disc.

Sometimes, yes. But if its a handful of SD extras I know it's not likely taking up a ton of space.

It still leaves the fact that I don't want 3D - crappy or not crappy. It's a waste of space. I've never watched the 3D version of Coraline and never will. If people are hesitant to buy Blu-ray what makes anyone think they'll jump in with 3D? Oh well. Just means if they raise the price for the 3D versions I won't be buying. No big deal to me.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

Is that how you feel about TrueHD and DTS-HD, both of which are optional codecs that require purchases of a compatible BD player and/or other equipment to handle them? Or how about D-BOX, which is on certain BDs and requires special equipment (including a chair)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-BOX_Technologies

The 2D version on B3D will take up the most space as well.

So if the 3D version make it impracticable to place even SD extras on the first disc, then they may put the extras in HD on the second disc, due to increase in space.

And if it's a bunch of HD extras? Does the fact that they're taking up as much space as the 3D extension might piss you off?

And my point is that any special feature that a particular person doesn't want is a "waste of space" to them. What makes this "waste of space" more offensive to you than all the other

Did you rail against the inclusion of the 3D version when it was first announced/released? Did you notice the 2D version to suffer in quality compared to other BDs?

Well, for those who bought a 3D-ready HDTV, having 3D BDs that they can play on their existing TV with the purchase of their first player would be an added incentive. And for those with PS3s, they could get 3D when they buy their next TV. And for those with neither an HDTV or BD player currently, they have another incentive to buy into it.

This is like arguing "if people are hesitant to buy Blu-ray what makes anyone think they'll jump in with BD-Live?" Or "if people are hesitant to buy Blu-ray what makes anyone think they'll jump in with Bonus View?" These enhanced profiles added more (optional) functionality to the format. B3D is just along the same lines.

That seems unlikely, for reasons I presented before.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

So...your argument against 3D is that it might require cases that make putting on slipcovers difficult?

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

The reason why I did not buy a Gen 1/2/3 BD player was because they could not internally decode ALL Audio formats. It's why I stuck with a PS3 until stand alones could do both. Of course, as you likely already know, DD+ or DTS HD is transparent to the master anyway so the differences wouldn't make any difference to me (or likely 95% of people who watch BDs).

D-Box :lol:

Which is fine. I want the 2D version to take up most the space, just as it should since Blu-ray is a 2D Format.

Sorry, studios won't do HD extras just because they have a whole 'extra' second disc waiting to be filled up. Making older features (i.e. catalog titles special features) HD costs money. Current stuff I (assume) costs less since it's being filmed in HD right away. Very few times have studios had to make things that were HD into SD because of space. But they have removed Special Features and/or cut them down (HD DVD to BD; U-Controlling stuff) because of lack of space.

No, it pisses me off because I don't want a whole different version of the film I can't watch being tossed on the disc while other things may be compromised. This isn't Profile 1.0 where we (i.e. us geeks) knew it was not the 'final' profile, but 2.0 is (now was).

Correct. I'd love Superbit BDs - just the movie and sound maxed out on the disc. But those failed. But I think what you're missing is even though people don't watch Special Features, those hold a value to them and they are more likely to buy because of them - even if they never get watched. Tossing a 3D version on to the disc won't do anything to consumers who don't want to upgrade their TV, BD and buy some glasses. There is no 'value' for something they can't use. Special Features they can use on their current setup. With the exception of some Profile 1.0, Gen 1/2 BD players, every BD player can handle Special Features. Consumers don't need to buy a new TV to experience them.

I've never liked 3D. Regardless if it was HD DVD, Blu-ray or TV. I've seen a few movies in 3D, and while I did enjoy them, I would never want to do that at my home. I'd never want to be forced to watch a movie with goofy glasses on or spend thousands to upgrade my stuff to do so. At $10, I can go a few times a year.

As for Coraline, I really didn't care about the film. I did wind up buying it cheap ($16?), but tossed the 3D glasses.

Great. So people who already bought 3D-Ready TVs (and it looks like even if it says so it may not be compatible!) and people who use a gaming console to watch movies might be able to enjoy it right off the bat. After buying 3D glasses, of course. So, how many of those 1080p LCDs that people are buying today are 3D-Ready?

BD-Live is a giant piece of shit. I've said it many times. It serves nothing but to allow studios to take stuff that could have been on the BD and force people into a advertisement hell-hole just to download (and slow speeds) and watch it. The reason I chose HD DVD was because it was 2.0 right away. There was no additional hardware to buy. I'm sorry we got stuck with shitty hardware and an unfinished spec. That's not my fault. Shitty for consumers, of course.

And prices....well, guess we'll see. We don't have any idea what they will be.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

:lol:

No. 3D is useless to me and apparently to others as well. I don't see value in upgrading my equipment for it. I don't want to pay higher prices because a 3D version is included (on the disc or separate). I want nothing to do with it.

Now, watch me eat my words in a year or two :(

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

With some people's attitudes around here, I'm surprised DVD was able to succeed at all. All I need is the movie, I'm not interested in any special features, so the VHS must be all I need! Don't be so afraid of change, especially considering we haven't even seen how these new 3D Blu-rays will look!

I can see people deciding to jump into Blu-ray because of 3D. If you talk to people on the street or even on this forum here, one of the main reasons why many people haven't gone to Blu-ray is because they don't perceive any real AV improvement or added value over the DVD. Adding 3D would be an added value for many or at least something that almost anyone could see as a difference from DVD.

I understand that you and many others may personally not care about 3D, but there are lots of people out there who do. That's probably why most 3D films have done pretty well at the box office.

Re: CES: 3D Spec is finally done
 

It's useless to you, but not to me. And if it's useless to you, the studios lose no money (because presumably there will be only one edition that will be backwards compatible and if you want the movie, you have to buy it that way). But if it's useful to me, they make money (because I may not have bought the movie if it wasn't in 3D).