Wow, in the couple of minutes it took me to write something, there were already quite a few more responses.

I see 3D like many features or extras. Before I had an HDTV, I didn't really care if something was released on DVD in a non-anamorphic transfer. Just like today I still don't have a receiver that can handle lossless audio and won't throw a fit if a lossless track isn't included. So, in effect, those lossless tracks are a waste of space for me, but I know many people here insist on a lossless soundtrack.

I'm willing to bet there are more Blu-ray owners out there who don't have equipment to handle lossless audio, but does that mean it shouldn't be included because for many people it's essentially a waste of space?

Nope. If its more expensive I won't buy it. Simple as that. I'll rent or find other ways of watching the movie. Hell, I'll buy it used so they lose the sale and I still get a copy of the film If you want to buy crappy movies just because they are 3D, go for it. I got suckered into that as well when Blu-ray/HD DVD was shiny and new, but no longer will I be doing that. And if the title is 1 penny over $20, forget it. I'm now conditioned to buy at $20 or less. Studios have already lost five sales from me because of that. I'll get the title used or wait.

I was buying Widescreen movies years before I had a Widescreen TV. Also looking out for Anamorphic versions.

If you have PS3 it does not matter - it can internally decode any and all audio codecs. Same with nearly every BD player available on the market today. You don't need the receiver to do it anymore. However, for 3D you need a new player, new TV and glasses. Granted, as I said, some may have one or the other or even both - but not many (Super obviously does). I have zero interests in upgrading to a new 3D TV or buying a game console to watch movies on. So 3D is out for me as I imagine many others. Trying to introduce yet another standard/format so soon is just not a good idea, especially in this economy.

Nope. Full 1080p in each eye. No loss of resolution at all. The 2-D version is simply either the left or right eye image, and any blu player will be able to play a 3-D disc in flat 2-D form.

I'd agree though, they shouldn't charge any premium for these discs. People who have no interest in buying the glasses shouldn't have to pay extra for the movie.

Who said I would be buying crappy 3D movies? The only movies that came out this year in 3D that I would want to own in 3D are Coraline and Avatar.

Also, I honestly don't think these will be more expensive. Even if the MSRP's are higher, I'm sure you'll be able to find them cheaply enough with sales.

I still think the technology needs work. If they get to the point where you don't need the glasses, then they'll be good to go.

Just saw Avatar today, and the movie is awesome. The 3D effect was very cool, but there's still a loss of color and light when you put those glasses on. What looks vibrant and colorful becomes kind of muddy and washed out with the glasses on. At the very least, clear glasses without the gray tint would help to allow the 3D effect without hurting the colors of the film.

Although, you'd think they can adjust for that. However, the problem would be that if they adjust it on their end so that 3D appears right, then the 2D version will be too bright and colorful. Of course, that's an issue if they're going to do one encode for both versions.

The best solution might be a separate video calibration stored in the display that you select for 3D. Eventually they could do this automatically through CEC; the player would tell the display that the material is 3D and to switch to the setting with cranked-up levels. Or maybe it would just be in the player?

So you based your BD player purchases on whether or not they could play audio formats you don't think make any difference?

D-BOX requires special equipment to be used, but is available as a special feature on select BDs. You're obviously not offended by its inclusion though, so you shouldn't be offended by the optional 3D image requiring special equipment either.

Meanwhile, for those with the necessary equipment, both D-BOX and potentially B3D are an added enhancement to the viewing experience, if they so choose to use them. BDs with these features will get extra consideration by those who have the available equipment, and the number of BDs with the feature will be part of a deciding factor for those who may buy the equipment.

This was in reference to you writing about how HD extras are downconverted to SD to fit onto 1-disc BDs. I was pointing out that if the 3D version of the film thus bumped these originally-HD extras to a second disc, then they may actually ending up staying HD, which would mean the 3D version benefited those who like other extras as well.

So you're contradicting your own point now?
"Other things may be compromised," with emphasis on "may." B3D isn't any more likely to "compromise" the disc than any other extra or collection of extras, and you don't mind when other special features "you don't want" are included, such as Lossless audio tracks you think "make no difference."

Why do you care that B3D is an extension if you don't want it?

Actually, you're failing to see that B3D adds value to the BD in the same way other special features to, perhaps more so. For example, even though I can't play them right now, I like the idea of lossless audio tracks on my BDs because I plan to eventually upgrade some of my equipment, and then I'll be able to listen to this optional, previously "useless" tracks. The same with B3D. People may appreciate the inclusion of a 3D version even if they can't immediately watch it on their current TV.

It's the same as with anamorphic video on DVD: people give value to special features they think they'll eventually use in addition to the features that they can access immediately.

Add in that B3D may cause more 2-disc BDs, and it's a whole lot of perceived added value to consumers

Then you'll have no need for this special feature, just like you don't see a need for lossless audio.

You must have a different definition of "never liked" than I do.

You don't have to be so melodramatic. Nobody's going to "force" you to watch in 3D, even if you do have a 3D compatible TV and BD player.

Again, just me, but I typically don't buy films I "really didn't care about."

However, my point wasn't about the quality of the film, but the quality of the presentation of the BD. Did you notice a lack of quality in the 2D transfer, even though the disc housed a completely separate 3D transfer? Did you bitch about the inclusion of the 3D version, and how it was using space better suited to thee video encode/other features? You obviously didn't boycott the BD, so I don't see why you would for a B3D either.

That's like asking how many TrueHD and DTS-HD receivers there were when BD and HD DVD were announced. The 3D special feature will be available for some to use almost instantly, while others may be able to view it after purchasing a new piece of equipment, likely one they were going to purchase anyways. For TV and BD manufacturers, 3D compatibility will be one more feature they can use to draw in buyers.

If you don't care for BD-Live, why did you care that HD DVD offered its equivalent right away? "Online downloading of content sucks, and HD DVD is better because it allowed me to do it first!"

So, if B3D is the same price as a normal BD release, will you buy it then?

And why were you doing that? Why weren't you bitching about them "wasting space" encoding an anamorphic version of the film you couldn't currently use and railing about how you didn't want to "have to" upgrade your equipment in order to view the benefit?

What happened to your PS3? You just said you had one in your previous post.

It's not introducing a new standard or format, it's introducing an optional extension to an existing one. It's like when DTS was added to DVDs as an optional audio codec extension. Do you think that was a bad thing?

B3D is "display agnostic," meaning that the format doesn't care how the 3D is ultimate displayed; it just deals with how the 3D image is stored on the disc and how it's transferred to the display (as two separate images for each eye). This means that, when a spec-less 3D TV is released, you'll be able to play B3D on it.

The glasses aren't tinted, they're polarized. Only light traveling in a certain orientation passes through each lens, with each lens set for a different orientation. The loss of vibrancy is due to the fact that light naturally tends to scatter, so you receive slightly less of it through the lenses than you would normally.

The way this new format works is that the BD players will tell the TV it's sending a 3D image. The TVs can then adjust the image accordingly before displaying it in the 3D method of its choice.

The BD player could, but since it doesn't ultimately know how the TV is going to show the 3D image, I think any adjustments would be better left to the TV.

There are a lot of good points in the above posts, which means they will be promptly ignored.

Yes, some good points. I think Jay G. might have better explained some of the things that I was trying to get across.

Here's another thought about B3D:

Its designed to replace the anaglyph 3D used on current DVD and BD releases, like Coraline. It's also "display agnostic," meaning that the disc simply stores the two separate images for each eye, and it's up to the display to decide how to show it (polarized, shutter lenses, etc).

However, anaglyph is currently used because, while possibly the worst method of viewing 3D, it works on nearly every display.

So I'm thinking that a B3D compatible player could be made that takes the two separate images and generates a single anaglyph image on-the-fly to be sent to displays that can't handle any other form of 3D. This would make B3D compatible with most current displays, at least on the same quality level as current 3D efforts on BD.

The main problem I see is that I don't know the processing power required to produce anaglyph images on the fly. It may be that the processing power required to generate 24 anaglyph images a second may make this method economically infeasible, but I still think it's technically possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyp...naglyph_images

So, this won't work with projectors? I honestly was thinking of finally jumping into the projector world for something like this. I loved being drawn into Avatar's world, and didn't find it that gimmicky. Maybe I'm just a sucker though.

Ha, that's what I came to say.

You know there's a problem with a Sony blu-ray has issues on a Sony blu-ray player.

That's a really good question. I suppose there might be new 3D projectors that are going to be developed. I don't know. I've been considering building a theater room with a projector, so that's something worth knowing.

I know other people have had problems, but I've never had an issue playing any Blu-ray that I've purchased, even during the time my PS3 wasn't online and I wasn't updating the firmware.

Holy shit! Who's the one doing the "whining"? Look in a fucking mirror!

We get it! You're super bitter still that you're HD-DVD world came crashing down. Shouldn't you be scouring the internet for some numbers to show everyone how Blu-ray is performing badly?

There are "3D Ready" projectors out there now, although you may want to wait until B3D compatible players and discs are out before committing, just to make sure the projector will work with the format.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/proj...d&is=&sort=pop

I waited until a 'complete' spec BD Player launched to buy a stand alone. Because of the poor load times, disc issues etc with early BD players, I wanted a 'standard' to emerge. That was the BD350 for me (which I've since upgraded many times over). Audio wasn't a requirment for me, since the 'core' was good enough, but I didn't want to settle on something that had other issues with it.

D-BOX came out long before Blu-ray did so no additional equipment would have to purchased. At this point, it's rarely being used and only so when D-BOX pays whatever studio to include its support (Universal and Fox I think). I can't imagine it takes up much space on a disc either (I could be wrong, never felt compelled enough to look into it since the chairs are $5k and not sold in retail stores.)

Which is a possibility. Just like a possibility that they may be dropped altogether if there is not enough space on the 1 BD50 and the studio does not want to spring for a second disc.


Far to much stuff to respond to. I think I've made my point on why I won't be playing the 3D game. Blu-ray has not even caught on and a new format that requires several additional components is already being introduced. While some may be fine with it, I'm not. My HD DVD comments are that HD DVD was 'complete' when it launched. Blu-ray was not. For some, they've already played the double-dipping game going from a Profile 1.0, to 1.1 to 2.0 player. With HD DVD that would not have happened. So to now ask that those people purchase yet another BD player is wrong.

Are you saying I couldn't watch Widescreen movies on my Fullscreen TV? Because I could. My DVD player also played Widescreen DVDs. I can't watch the 3D version of the films with my current TV and BD player.


I sold it. I wanted a 'complete' reliable BD player when I got into Blu-ray and the PS3 was it. As soon as a decent SA BD player launched (S350) that was 2.0 I jumped. You may ask why I sold the PS3 and it's simple - I wanted an actual display so I could see the running time.


It requires a new TV, new BD player and 3D Glasses (for many - some are somewhat compliant like Supr). In the mean time, we currently don't know if the studios will raise the price for these 3D version of the films (doubtful a 2D version will be sold individually) and/or if the 2D encode will be compromised to fit in another version of the film on the disc.

Funny how when potentially anti-Blu-ray stuff comes out here several people show up out of the blue and start freaking out.

But hey, good on not staying on topic! Or are you just here to attack me?

Sounds to me like Blu-ray is trying to follow Apple's business model of planned obsolescence.

I'm not freaking out or attacking you. Get over yourself. Just pointing out AGAIN, how played out your whole anti-Blu-ray persona is. I know you bought into the format, but that doesn't mean you're not still bitter about it, and you obviously are. Your precious HD-DVD didn't make the cut. To still be going on about how it was/would have been better almost two years after it's demise is, well, frankly, pretty pathetic.

If a Michigan fan buys an Ohio St. jersey and then goes to Columbus to tell people how lame Ohio St. is, he's still a Michigan fan. Just a stupid one.

So you have nothing to contribute to the topic at hand? I have well over 300 BDs now and 200 on HD DVD and bought into both formats during the format war (June 06 and Nov 06). I've moved on a long time ago. But I can still have my issues with the format, especially one that is introducing yet another thing that requires three new pieces of hardware to use. When you're ready to talk about the topic at hand, feel free to. Otherwise, I'll go ahead and ignore your attack response.

But this isn't a new format. It's still Blu-ray. No one is required to go out and buy new TVs and new Blu-ray players to simply watch the Blu-ray. It's to enjoy an added feature of Blu-ray. Just like many people have had to upgrade their audio equipment to be able to handle the new lossless audio options or their TVs to make sure there was HDMI. Some people will choose to upgrade to enjoy those options, some won't. It's the same thing!

And since HD-DVD was brought into this, I have no doubt that this same thing would be happening if HD-DVD had won the format war. There's obviously interest, whether it be from the public or purely from the studios, in creating a better home 3D option. If it wasn't Blu-ray, I'm sure it would have been HD-DVD.