No 3D Blu-ray movie support for PS3 this summer

Wow, it's like they want to kill 3D off.

-forcing everyone to buy a new TV when any 120 hz TV should do (and does for pcs with compatible nvidia cards) even though there are games on PS3/360 (ie: avatar) that work on existing TVs
-each tv maker has their own proprietary glasses
-no support

Wow, they just killed whatever chances the 3d market had for this year, hopefully it won't slow down all other releases... With no content who's going to spend their money on those tvs?

Sounds like early adopters are going to be disappointed.

Yeah I have a 120hz 1080p 46" LCD hooked up to my PC and I can do 3d on it. Why can't my PS3s 3D work on it?

I'm actually on my second 3D ready TV now. The tech has been around for a few years, just gone un-utilized.

They still make games for PC that aren't MMO's, like what? and i'm an old school pc gamer. I'm just surprised, i thought everyone finally migrated to consoles.

^ Every major FPS title that is "multiplatform" is usually on PC and the superior version. Recently Bad Company 2, Modern Warfare 2, Bioshock, etc. Lots of other high profile games like Resident Evil 5, Fallout 3 (way too many to list)...

Also, a lot of these games are 3D Vision Ready or work very well in 3D:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_3D_Games.html

I thought you needed a 220Hz TV for any kind of 3D? I don't see how the nVidia 3D can work on a 120Hz monitor..

LCD 3D is not the way to go.

Monsters Vs. Aliens was probably the most meh of all 3D movies released. Up is pretty close in terms of movies that poorly utilize the 3D aspect.

So it might be the movie, rather than the actual system.

Waiting would be the keyword. Look how long it took them to adopt new tech like HD, optical discs, online multiplayer, etc. HD has to come before 3D.

I think he's talking about the 3DS, Extinction

Mmmm, no. I have $400 3D projector and it's far from silly playing games in 3D on a 88" screen.

There's only one thing sillier than investing in a $400 3D projector, 88-inch screen, and bragging about it on a gaming blog: "Chibi Chaingun" as a username.

@ LaughingTarget

The glasses aren't that bad but the price point is ridicules... how much are you willing to shell out so people who come over to watch the game, can watch it in 3D.

Sorry Temidien, I have no idea what you're on about about my user name or spending $400 on a projector. Care to explain?

Wouldn't a $400 3D projector be REALLY crappy quality?
No thanks.

It's an XVGA 4:3 native pj that is 1024x768 which is technically HD at that aspect ratio (at a 9.5' throw distance it's quite clear). It does 16:9 as well though and will accept up to a 1080p signal. It accepts a true 120hz signal therefore is capable of 3D (and is fully compatible with nvidia 3d Vision kit). It's the Viewsonic pjd6210 model.

Sounds pretty cool to me, Chibi

@Rob

Thanks!
My initial reply here was to inform that:
1.) 3D in the home isn't "silly"...
2.) ...Especially when it can be done very cheaply.

However, instead I got personally ridiculed because of my username (which I still don't get). :\

Home 3D isn't silly, agreed. But home 3D using battery powered glasses is silly, especially when a far superior technology is around the corner.

That and it requires HDMI, meaning not all 360s can do it. And it requires a framebuffer larger than 360 can handle.

"And it requires a framebuffer larger than 360 can handle."

Please NO FUD.

X360 framebuffer is only "limited" only by memory avilable to graphics card 512MB not the dedicated 10MB EDRAM - if game requires more I recommend googling for "tilting"
Anyway PS3 that does'nt have ANY dedicated memory and is uning it's normal video memory (256MB) all the time without problems...

Avatar 3D and other 3D games works on X360 without problem (even slightly faster!):
www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-stereo-3d-article

@anonim

I have no idea why you were downvoted.

Without a shred of proof posted other than the proof that the 360 already does 3D currently (which you linked), I think there's a lot of misinformation out there.

I'm very interested in seeing where this "limitation" of the 360 originated. Maybe it's something I have never come across, but there are already 3D releases on the 360 and MS officially saying it's capable that make me think otherwise.

It may be a gimmick you love, i'd try it first before dismissing it. Nevertheless, 3D doesn't work on my eyes unfortunately. Seems like my vision is SHIT.

If its any consolation, if you can't perceive simulated 3d, it could be due to any number of awful sounding, but relatively unimportant, disorders! Lazy eye, astigmatism, etc!

Early 1960s

"Color TV? Pfffff, I just spent all this money on a new black and white set. No thanks, I'll just watch my TV shows normal-like."

Early 2000s

"HDTV? Pfffff, I just spent all this money on a new 32" flat screen (tube). There's really not enough difference to upgrade. No thanks, I'll just play my games and movies normal-like."

2006-2009

"1080p and Blu-Ray? Pffffff, I just spent all my money on a 720p set and an upscaling DVD player. No thanks, 1080p is overrated and I'll watch my DVDs on my new upscaling DVD player normal-like."

2010 - ____

"3D? Pffffffffffffffffff, I said I'd never upgrade the previous times something new came out, but I did every time! But I'll say it again - I'll just watch it on my flat picture all NORMAL LIKE!"

:D

You're comparing apples and oranges.

B&W television broadcasts began in the 1930s, a full 24 years before the first color television broadcast. And even then, it was years before most households had color televisions.

Televisions remained more or less the same until the ATSC broadcast standard was developed in the early/mid 1990s. Sure, you had "flat screen" CRT televisions in between, but they were really just incremental improvements over traditional CRTs--the signal and resolution remained the same.

Which brings me to the crux of my argument: enough time hasn't passed since the last "big thing:" HDTV. Until HDTV has run its course, attempting to push a "new" display standard is going to flop.

Oh, and 1080p has always been a part of the ATSC (although it only supported 1080p @ 24 hz until a 2008 amendment, which brought it up to 60 hz).

The operative word there is "at an incremental cost." Right now, the price difference is hefty. And for manufacturers to get to a point where the price difference is not hefty, there will need to be a significant base of "early adopters" to make it worth the r&d.

I just think they're pushing too much, too soon.

@JCD

Bravo. I agree. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of 3D, but I'm a family of 4. And my kids are still very young. There is no way on this planet I want to invest money in a new TV that's going to cost thousands more and be smaller than I could get if I upgraded my 37".

The fact that there is very little difference between 720p and 1080p unless you're pushing over 50" even makes me wonder if I need to get a full HD tv.

I'm sure that I'll get a TV that's 120hz, but I probably won't use a lot of the functions on there. The motion blur whatever function just looks so unnatural to me, and I can't imagine it ever BEING on.

One day, when my kids are older and care about it, I'm sure technology will have changed and we won't need glasses to view 3D movies.

And by that point, hopefully I won't be a broke-ass and can afford the tech then :)

For the time being, I'll be happy spending ~1k on my +40ish" TV.

Oh, yeah, I mean, if money were no object, I'd be gung-ho about 3d. Its fun. What else is there to say? I like stereograms. Hell, I still think viewmasters are cool (my parents have a viewmaster-type device from the 19th century that is AWESOME).

But money is an object. I have a wife, a kid, and a mortgage (on my blinkin' upside down house . . .). I got a 37", 720P/1080i hdtv cuz it wad cheap (like $400). Otherwise I'd still be sd.

Oh, and don't bother with 1080p unless you either:
A) get a 50"+ set, or
B) sit REALLY close to the tube.

Otherwise, your eyes wont see a difference.

Also, I wouldn't bother with 1080p unless I either had or was planning to get a blu ray player. Television broadcasts in the US are all in 480i/480p/720p/1080i only. 1080p requires too much bandwidth, and isn't a part of the broadcast standard of the ATSC guidelines.

You are.

Anaglyphic 3d is really old technology (although the basic concept is more or less the same for 3d movies today!). The red/blue images are filtered by red/blue celophane glasses, one color for each eye, resulting in each eye seeing a slightly different image. The brain puts the images together, and perceives the two images as one image with proper depth perception.

The stuff they're using now is typically either RealD or Dolby 3d (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1085037).

That link will give you some specifics on how each system works, but basically, RealD uses polarized lenses and a high framerate (144 fps) to feed different data into each eye. In a sense, the picture "flickers" back and forth between the two images that are to be merged by your mind, and the polarized lenses in your glasses make sure that the right eye sees the right images.

Dolby 3d is more complicated, using some sort of active, non-disposable 3d glasses. Its the same basic concept, though--each eye is fed a slightly different image, resulting in a combined image with the perception of depth.

There are also two other 3d systems worth mention. One uses "shutter glasses." I'm pretty sure this is how NVidia's 3d works. Basically, the left and right eye of the glasses flicker on and off, and the display is synchronized to this flickering, resulting in each eye seeing an offset image and combining these images into one, 3d image. Personally, I find shutter glasses to be annoying (they had a demo set up at Fry's Electronics, and it gave me a headache), but its one way to get the job done.

The other 3d system is "glasses-free." This is what the 3DS will use. The way it works is there are two screens in the tv, not just one, and they are layered on top of one another. The one in behind has a solid background; you can't see through it. The one in the front is see through. Then, there is a small, relatively low res digital camera in the tv that tracks the position of your head as you watch the set. Using math, magic, and a little bit of voodoo, the set adjusts the display of the two screens such that you perceive an actual 3d image because the different screens move at different rates of speed, etc. It's kinda like driving in a valley and looking out the window. The landscape close to you moves quickly, but the mountains that are further away move slower.

Incidentally, the 3ds tech is not terribly different from the virtual boy (which, to be fair, displayed some nice 3d--it just had other major system flaws). And yes, I have a virtual boy (found it at good will for $5!!). The head tracking, color screen, and and system design should actually make it work this time around tho! :)

You aren't an idiot for not knowing. If you haven't followed CES, you wouldn't know.

From what I've been able to find, the Blu Ray 3d standard is its own thing, independent from cinema 3d standards. When they upgrade the standard of a media format (dvd, blu-ray, cd, etc), they try to do it in such a way that the standard is consistent across all devices. After all, if my dvd player doesn't play all dvds, then there is a flaw in the standard.

The ps3 doesn't support 3d blu ray yet. But because it has a flashable firmware, as well as hdmi output, it should be able to be upgraded to support 3d in the future.