Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Movies Sony Entertainment Hardware

Sony Announces First 3D Blu-ray Disc Players 145

Posted by timothy
from the please-remaster-that-boring-casablanca dept.
angry tapir writes "Sony has announced a new 3D Blu-ray Disc player and upgrades to existing players so that they will be able to show high-definition 3D movies too. The company introduced the BDP-S470 Blu-ray Disc model and upgraded existing home theater systems, which will be able to play Blu-ray movies when related firmware for the devices is released later this year. Movies based on the Blu-ray 3D specification, which was finalized by the Blu-ray Association in December, can be shown on the players."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Announces First 3D Blu-ray Disc Players

Comments Filter:
  • HDMI spec (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@noSPam.gmail.com> on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @06:29PM (#31091956) Homepage Journal

    Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec?

    Having the media standard and players are nice, but until I know I have a TV that will support a standard (that will be around for more than 2 seconds) is somewhat important as well.

    • by brunes69 (86786) <slashdot&keirstead,org> on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @06:34PM (#31092052) Homepage

      Sony and Blu-Ray are behind HDMI, as is every other media company around. Any TV that does not support HDMI will have no market share.

      • Right, but... (Score:2, Interesting)

        It's yet another HDMI version. They were supposed to even have larger connectors that transferred more data, but I see those nowhere. I'm not seeing why a 24 Hz movie can't be doubled to 48 Hz for 3D when it transfers at 60 Hz anyway usually. I think the tremendous amount of bandwidth needed for those black bars around movies means we all have to upgrade.

        • by brunes69 (86786)

          Most of the different HDMI versions are just implementations in software, not hardware. That is why all it takes to make the PS3 capable of 3D is a software upgrade.

          When you see an "HDMI 1.3" cable, it is likely 100% identical to a 1.1 cable - the only difference is in the tolerance requirements of the conductors.

          • by kryptkpr (180196)

            That is why all it takes to make the PS3 capable of 3D is a software upgrade.

            Actually, the current PS3 will not be certified as Bluray 3D compatible. It can only support a subset of the new standards without hardware changes (it can't implement one of the required modes .. Frame alternative, I believe, but I could be wrong).

        • 60Hz transfers only of half the screen, so they're 30 Hz effective.
          • Re:Right, but... (Score:5, Informative)

            by dangitman (862676) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @08:29PM (#31093286)

            60Hz transfers only of half the screen, so they're 30 Hz effective.

            Not at 60p, it doesn't. 60p, whether at 1080 or 720 resolution tranfers a full frame 60 times per second. It's only interlaced formats that are transfer half the image with each refresh.

            • Yes, but what devices support 60p output? Or for that matter, do any TVs support 60p input? 60i, yes; 24p, yes; I haven't heard of 60p usage outside of computers, though.
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by Khyber (864651)

                Holy shit have you been in a cave? We've had 60Hz progressive scan for ages in LCD and Plasma TVs!

              • My TV supports 1080p 120hz and it's from 2 years ago.
              • by hazydave (96747)

                Actually, support for 1080/60p input is more common in TVs than support for 1080/24p input, believe it or not. There's not much advantage to accepting 1080/24p if your screen refresh is fixed, or variable up to only 60p... the TV or the video source can do the higher speed pulldown from 24p, but it still has to be done.

                Once you have variable refresh to 120Hz, as many of the 2009-vintage HDTVs do, then you can get a better display accepting 24p and pulling it to 72p output. So it's much more common to find 1

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Its HDMI 1.4

          http://www.hdmi.org/press/press_release.aspx?prid=101

          There are new specs for connectors, but its mostly a mini connector (camcorders ect.) and a connector for automotive use.

          Most of the 3D and the higher resolution formats (4Kx4K , 4Kx2K ect) arn't spec'd for full 60Hz refresh rates (30Hz or slower), so they don't exceed the available bandwidth (around 20Gbs) on the existing cable.

      • Our Verizon DVR doesn't like our Samsung flatscreen. Lots of loss-of-synch's over HDMI, and that's not very unusual. HDMI is sort of like TIFF that way: so many options that it's a wonder any sender and receiver can sync at all. So there's a difference between supporting plugs and basic protocols and actually working well together.

        Fortunately, our PS3 plays Blu-rays flawlessly to the Samsung... so far.

    • Re:HDMI spec (Score:4, Insightful)

      by berashith (222128) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @06:36PM (#31092082)

      exactly , this is why I am still using my trusted analog rabbit ears ...

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Hatta (162192)

        To receive what? Analog TV is dead in the US. If you're still watching OTA broadcasts, spend an hour on a weekend to make one of these [blogspot.com]. It works much better for DTV than rabbit ears. I found the reflector to be unnecessary.

        • Any old TV antenna should work just fine in the new era because the digital TV band is a subset of the TV bands used before. I'm pulling in digital HD signals from stations that I used to get a fuzzy picture from using the same rooftop antenna. HD Radio works too!

          • by Dare nMc (468959)

            FYI, most US DigitalTV stations are UHF [wikipedia.org]. since rabbit ears are very lousy UHF antennas... So while your old antenna may work fine; rabbit ears, without a UHF loop are not.

            • by TheSync (5291)

              9% of the total digital TV stations in the United States still utilize VHF. Las Vegas in an interesting market with 5 VHF stations,

        • by Dare nMc (468959)

          To receive what? Analog TV is dead in the US.

          Maybe they are close to the boarder, Canada is still not all digital broadcast (until Aug 2011) not sure Mexico has announced any HD plans (I can still get several Mexican Analog stations but not likely from across the boarder, 50 miles away.)

          • by socsoc (1116769)
            People still don't get this? On /. of all places? The US DTV conversion had almost nothing to do with HD. HD is one of many standards in ATSC Digital TV, but isn't the same thing. You could have non-hd digital transmissions and plenty of stations do.
    • Re:HDMI spec (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sponge Bath (413667) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @06:44PM (#31092188)

      Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec?

      If they claimed to stand behind it, would you trust them?

      I can imagine this being announced by most, implemented by some, and then abandoned by all due to industry spats and lack of consumer interest. Then a lucky few will own the TV equivalent of 1970s laserdisc players.

      • In 1998 they were all behind IEEE1394, which had very good link-level copy-protection. It was going to tie all the home theater components together. Sony made one TV with it, calling their version iLink. Then Intel turned its back on it, favoring USB 2.0, and that was the end of it. Even Apple, who owns many if the patents (calling it Firewire), has backed away from it.
        • by Darinbob (1142669)
          The markets went with the compatible option (works with existing USB 1.0 devices and hosts) and the mass market option (whatever wintel supports out of the box). IEEE1394 is better in many (most) ways, but the market of generic computer users prefer the cheapest thing that gets the job done; ie, the just-good-enough option. 1394 ended up as more of a high end thing, so was more commonly used in the Mac market where they're used to spending a bit of a premium. (and 1394 wasn't really about video, it was j
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by socsoc (1116769)
          All of my cable company devices have always had very good copy-protection in IEEE1394, to the point where they were disabled and plugging a cable into it was as useful as plugging it up with mud. I thought the FCC required it, but maybe there was some grey area where you only needed to physically supply it, but not have it usable.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Darkness404 (1287218)
      HDMI is supported by just about everything save for Apple.
      • There is a new proposed HDMI spec for the additional bandwidth needed, but it doesn't have widespread acceptance by the TV industry yet.

        • Well, of course it doesn't quite yet, its just that, new and proposed. HDMI isn't going anywhere just like USB isn't. But right now USB 3.0 ports are still a rarity on most computers. There are very, very few people who are going to want to spend the money buying -another- HDTV, and most people just want a cheap one.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by dangitman (862676)

        HDMI is supported by just about everything save for Apple.

        Trolling again, I see. Apple computers are perfectly capable of outputting over HDMI.

      • by Nerdfest (867930)

        save for Apple.

        Is that will, reflex, or fortitude?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hazydave (96747)

      So far, the TV manufacturers are standing behind HDMI... DisplayPort is being pushed as the official computer industry replacement for DVI. There's a virtual certainty that some TVs will eventually grow DisplayPorts, but hey, most modern TVs have VGA connectors too. It's not as if anyone making a television is all THAT worried about cutting down on the ports count.

  • What about the PS3? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Xamusk (702162)
    I thought the PS3 would be the first one to have BR 3D support, since it was announced when the spec became ready.
    • by Gandhi of War (1741426) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @06:39PM (#31092128)
      It says in the first linked article that the PS3 will be supported by the Blu-ray 3D specs.
      • Launch PS3? (Score:2, Insightful)

        Including the launch PS3 (I think they were 20/60 GB)? Only so much you can do with a system update.

        • Re:Launch PS3? (Score:4, Informative)

          by DigiShaman (671371) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @06:48PM (#31092232) Homepage

          Shouldn't be an issue I think. The CPU and GPU specs have the same level of processing power. Only items removed after launch were the PS2 hardware emulation and a few I/O ports on newer units.

        • The article I read didn't specify, but I feel like they would've said if the launch PS3's weren't able to support them. It'll probably be a big update though, so start getting rid of those save games you'll never use again.
          • Why would you think an update be be that large? We are only talking about an additional protocol and maybe some post processing of the video. Nothing fancy at all. In fact, the Sony BDP-S370 will also be getting an update and already has a similar XMB GUI that the PS3 uses. I'm not sure how much internal flash storage the BDP-S370 has, but the BDP-S570 has 1GB internal. Not much at all.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Edgewize (262271)

          You would be amazed what firmware can do. Sony recently announced a revision to the physical disc format that places the pits closer together to increase storage by a significant percentage... and all existing Blu-Ray drives will be made compatible via firmware.

          There is a reason that these drives cost so much to manufacture. The physical hardware is incredibly generic, and nobody really knows the limits of its capabilities.

        • by hibiki_r (649814)

          If anything, the launch PS3s are more capable, having extra chips under the hood to also be able to play PS2 games.

    • by alvinrod (889928)
      The PS3 will be able to accommodate the spec as per Sony's announcement at CES last month. It's all a mater of when Sony pushes out the update for it. Apparently, the bigger problem is that you'll likely need a new TV [engadget.com] from what I've been able to find. There are some models [3dmovielist.com] that are apparently capable of supporting it, but it seems fairly sparse.

      As far as I know there isn't a lot of content out there to take advantage of either. Avatar is a nice example, but I can't think of anything else off of the top o
      • by tlhIngan (30335)

        Shouldn't be an issue I think. The CPU and GPU specs have the same level of processing power. Only items removed after launch were the PS2 hardware emulation and a few I/O ports on newer units.

        Actually, ALL PS2 emulation was removed. The launch units had a PS2 inside them, the later ones had just one of the parts, while the cheap one lacked it and couldn't do PS2 playback at all. The new slim ones also cannot play PS2 games, and cannot do "OtherOS" (aka Linux). And lack 2 USB ports.

        What I want to know is if

    • by hazydave (96747)

      I'm pretty sure they're prototyping these Blu-Ray upgrades on the PS3.

      But Sony's not just going to upgrade your PS3 for 3D Blu-Ray. They need to have support for 3D games, and of course, Sony's version of 3D shutter glasses so you can actually make use of the thing. My guess is they use Bluetooth for the sync... no need to add-on any hardware to the PS3, and receiving what's essentially 60 "flip a bit" signals per second can't be all that draining on the battery. It's a good move... I don't know if I'd worr

      • by TheSync (5291)

        The PS3 can only deliver a 60p video, so they're going to do field-multiplexed 30p stereoscopic

        Keep in mind that most stereoscopic movies are still 24p. Thus frame-alternating left/right a 24 views/second for each eye means the equivalent bandwidth of 1080p48, less than the 1080p60 HDMI 1.3 is capable of.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Let me know when they release the first 4D Blu-ray disc players.

    • by Itninja (937614)
      They already did, like 25 years from now. I was amazed at how many ifths per oofth it will have.
    • by dindi (78034)

      it is 3d .... then you can move in time within the boundaries of the movie. that is an extra D there for you.

  • The X-Prize brain-computer interface will make this obsolete in only 40 years.

  • Meh (Score:1, Troll)

    by clang_jangle (975789)
    But they'll still have to squeeze years worth of storytelling into about two hours. Screw that, I'm holding out for 4D.

    Okay, seriously -- what do they think, that everyone will just keep several extra sets of funny glasses around so when company comes they can get a headac^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H watch bad fake "3D" too? They're dreaming.
    • by vlm (69642)

      everyone will just keep several extra sets of funny glasses around so when company comes they can

      Hard to say if their plan is to profit off the "everyone brings their own $200 sunglasses" model, or the "every house has a stack of paper plates" model.

      I could see this as a path to get everyone to upgrade their glasses... baby boomers aren't getting any younger, they probably all wear glasses, and its time for the corps to shear the sheep again?

  • Finally (Score:5, Funny)

    by SnarfQuest (469614) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @06:39PM (#31092118)

    Finally, a 3D blue-ray player! I keep losing my 2-dimensional player when the wind blows it under the couch. It's impossible to see from the side, since it is infinately thin, so I have to move the couch to be able to see it from the top or bottom. They should have made them 3 dimensional in the first place!

    • by vlm (69642)

      Finally, a 3D blue-ray player! I keep losing my 2-dimensional player when the wind blows it under the couch. It's impossible to see from the side, since it is infinately thin, so I have to move the couch to be able to see it from the top or bottom. They should have made them 3 dimensional in the first place!

      I still have one of those old fashioned "entertainment centers" you know a 2001-movie style monolith of wood with cutouts for various machinery such as my CRT TV. In that scenario, 2D devices stack nicely in the limited space available as if a stack of paper.

      • by Obfuscant (592200)
        In that scenario, 2D devices stack nicely in the limited space available as if a stack of paper.

        Yeah, but I find that the wooden frame can only support ten or fifteen thousand of the players, since even though the 2D players have no thickness they still have mass. And the cabling is a real mess once you get past fifteen or twenty.

        It is nice that you can pick them up for nothing at the local store. Just keep the thin edge pointed towards the security camera and they never see you walking out with one. Or

    • by FrigBot (1459361) *

      Heh heh.

    • Only 3D? No thanks.
      I had one of those back in the day. I saw it only for a split second and it was gone.
      I'm currently holding out until they make a 4 dimensional one... which, quite frankly, they should have made in the first place!

  • by stavrica (701765)

    Is anybody else bothered by the false advertising that well funded corporate marketing and headline-seeking news is shoving down the public's collective throat?

    Claiming that a stereoscopic picture is the equivalent of a 3 dimensional projection is the equivalent of presenting a stereo entertainment center and claiming that it is surround sound.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @07:01PM (#31092352)

      Claiming that a stereoscopic picture is the equivalent of a 3 dimensional projection is the equivalent of presenting a stereo entertainment center and claiming that it is surround sound.

      Stereoscopic, def.: "The viewing of objects as three-dimensional."

      Clue: you're being a douche when you rant on threads you have nothing to contribute, beside the obvious.

    • by Korbeau (913903)

      You haven't seen Avatar, have you?

    • It sounds more like you're sick of advertising. Period.

      Nobody, except the most clueless of rock-dwelling hermits, will think that 3D television projects a 3-dimensional environment into their living room, and thus pinning a deceptive advertising charge would be difficult to impossible.

  • About time! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Chris Burke (6130)

    I gotta say I can't wait for 3D BluRay discs to come out. I keep accidentally losing the 2D ones between the atoms of my couch!

  • I'd been struggling along with a 2D one which was an absolute nightmare to find when viewed end on...

    This extra dimension you refer to interests me, do you have more information in the form of a pop up book?

  • 3D (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Niris (1443675)
    I don't understand what the difference is between 3D blu-ray and normal blu-ray HD movies. Do they mean like "holy shit that's popping out of the screen" with 3D glasses support like Avatar or just "Damn that's some nice graphics"
    • by Dynedain (141758)

      They mean "holy shit that's popping out of the screen" with glasses and specialty devices.

      "Damn that's some nice graphics" has no impact on the source media or display device.

    • Holy shit, that's popping out of the screen.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Niris (1443675)
        Awesome, thanks. I was wondering if they'd come out with some way to release movies like Avatar in 3D soon since most people are saying that's the only way to see it. Good to know.

        on a side note, hooray for being labeled off topic for trying to clarify what the new technology is :P
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      The usual term is "stereo" or "stereo-3D." It's been around since shortly after the invention of photography.

      I love stereo-3D myself, and have a collection of it in various forms including an antique Stereo-Realist camera that can take action stills in stereo. It's also quite easy to take stereo stills with any digital camera, providing there's no movement involved in the subject-- just by taking the picture, moving over about a foot, and taking another framed the same (and hopefully, with the same ex
      • by dr00g911 (531736)

        Speaking of expensive parlor tricks...

        About half of the stereo features hitting theaters this year will be last minute planar projection fake conversions in effort to jack up the ticket price. Offshore stereo conversion companies are sprouting up like weeks in the VFX industry currently.

        So, you've got stuff like Up and Avatar that actually start driving demand for theatrical stereo, soon to be followed by an avalanche of headache inducing cashgrab.

        The industry seems intent on sabotaging itself.

        Aside: I'm a

      • by hazydave (96747)

        I don't really see it that way.

        Rather, this is the typical theater vs. home wars, bumping up to the next level. It's clear that Hollywood, Inc. has discovered that "3D" in films, when used to actually enhance the film (rather as the gimmick it's been in the past) is fairly compelling. More people saw "Avatar" in 3D than normal, and this film is now the highest grossing in history, and the first to pass the $2 billion mark. And that's just box office.

        The 3D thing is really overblown, anyway. It's largely a c

  • 3D!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Temujin_12 (832986) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @07:16PM (#31092484)

    A 3-dimensional player would have been nice. All I have is a 2-dimensional Blu-ray player.

    Figuring out the physics behind how to convert a 3-dimensional Blu-ray disc into 2-dimensional space and back so it could work with my 2-dimensional player was a bit tough, but once you get the hang of it it's not so bad.

    Oh wait.... you're talking about stereoscopic video, not the actual spacial dimensionality of the physical player.

    Sorry.

  • This is ridiculous. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AbRASiON (589899) * on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @07:35PM (#31092630) Journal

    Which 3D spec is it?
    The tech is incredibly immature right now, there's about 3 different methods of doing 3D - some require glasses, some apparently don't. How is it encoded on the disc, can the disc still contain the regular 2D blu ray movie. Is it the same spec as the other companies? What about the TV guys, is it the same spec there?

    They (not just Sony) are really praying for this 3D thing to take off and cause a whole new run of consumer idiot sales, we aren't falling for it this time, the 1080p fiasco was bad enough (it was never an official HD spec, it was added later) you expect us to sell out 1->30 month old HD TV's for a 3D one when the spec is a complete shambles?
    I think a 'lol, no!' should suffice here. I'm definitely waiting this one well, well out.

    • by Darinbob (1142669)
      What's going to win is someting like VHS - same old boring standard that didn't really change all that much in 20+ years. It seems like the video industry is trying to be like the computer industry and come out with something newer but incompatible every couple of years and expect that people will throw their old devices away and upgrade. It just won't happen. The majority of people will upgrade when the old devices stop working. Which makes me worried about planned obsolescence creeping into these thin
    • by theJML (911853) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @10:01PM (#31094450) Homepage

      The thing with the 3D spec's is that it's all in the TV. BluRay's just provide the 3d imaging (left and right frames) it's the TV then projects it, however the hell it wants to... active/passive glasses, polarized fields, stereoscopy, Dolby3D, Real3D, hell, even red-blue or magic eye if that's how the set works.

      Personally, I think the 3D thing is cool, it's finally bringing this stuff into the main stream that's going to make industry focus on ways to make it not suck. And I figure by the time they work that part out, it'll be about time to upgrade my currently 7 year old 1080i CRT to something a bit flatter and bigger without feeling like I didn't get my money's worth out of the current set (and relegating it to another room).

  • by RoboRay (735839) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @08:09PM (#31093022)

    If 2D BluRay comes on a flat disc, does 3D BluRay come on a sphere?

  • I had my nvidia shutters a long time ago (10 years or so), and while it was really fun I do not see myself getting into this new tv new glasses thing.

    I would expect to have an affordable at least 720p (1280x720?) glasses (per eye) tiny displays with a light helmet/head mount by now, but no... most headsets are still 640x480 or 800x600 .... 1024 costs a lot more..... Just do not get it......

    Technology is there and I think they would sell too......maybe I am just part of a crazy crowd who thinks that others

    • by Rockoon (1252108)
      Try this.

      Take a sheet of paper with printing on it and place it in front of one of your eyes at normal glasses-distance.

      If you are 30+ years old the odds are very good that you cant focus on the print at all, even if you do not need to wear glasses.

      So the solution is some sort of individually-tailored-to-the-person glasses to aid in viewing the hypothetical goggles of yours. Compared with the mass production of one-size-fits-all shutter glasses or polarized lenses, its no contest.

      I predict that most
      • by hazydave (96747)

        Everyone's doing LCD shutter glasses right now, simply because the TV doesn't really need to know anything about 3D.. it's a private agreement between your media player and your eyes, just as 16:9 vs. 4:3 was with DVD (eg, the analog TV doesn't have a clue about the format... well, maybe some PAL TVs get the 16:9/4:3 flag sent via SCART, but usually, the TV didn't know).

        Polarization is one great way to get away from active glasses. This is a piece of cake to do very nicely with a DLP projection TV, exactly

        • by TheSync (5291)

          Linear polarization is a fail in the theater

          You'll have to explain that to the people who saw Avatar in IMAX 3D (including myself). Worked fine, but yeah I had to watch my head tilt...

          DLP rear-projections were actually the first non-CRT stereoscopic TVs with active LCD shutter glasses, because they actually paint every frame with two sequential fields (think black and white squares on the checkerboard) to reduce the resolution needed of the DLP chip. The two fields were utilized for left and right eye vie

          • You'll have to explain that to the people who saw Avatar in IMAX 3D (including myself). Worked fine, but yeah I had to watch my head tilt...

            I found being required to sit up straight for nearly three hours a major downside of the experience. And the frame problems of IMAX just seemed to be exacerbated in 3D, I'm not sure why that it, but the flicker was pretty terrible at times.

            The bigger problem though was the fixed inter-ocular distance. My eyes strained in a bit, my daughter's (she's 6) had to accommoda

  • Hmmm... No mention of the PS3. Time to sell?
  • A few Years ago, I bought a large screen TV - Rear projection. At the time, I was not worried about HD as there was no HD content available for broadcast and the BluRay HDDVD battle (I can hardly call it a war) had not begun. It did have 1080i which I later found out was a HD spec. Cool I thought. I am ready for when this starts happening. Then a few months later, I hear very little about 1080i and lots about this 1080p stuff. Then start to hear I hear HDMI input. This monster box has coxial, Svideo, com
  • by Snaller (147050) on Wednesday February 10, 2010 @08:48PM (#31093462) Journal

    Remember when 3D used to mean they had two dimensions and a story!

    • by Korbeau (913903)

      A story with double-D, I could digg it :)

    • Remember when 3D used to mean they had two dimensions and a story!

      You're quite right. Photographs are 2D. TV and Movies are 3D. Avatar was 4D.

      I'm simply astonished the marketdroids haven't picked up on this yet.

  • Unfortunately, the Wonka bar is still very, very small. Ah well.

    --
    Toro

  • You going to give us glasses for this? I doubt I can use the RealD polarized glasses with my LCD TV.

  • Every time they mention 3D TV I think to myself: "DO NOT WANT!!!"

    Then I think to myself, gee am I some old curmudgeon that would have been against talkies one the big screen clinging to my black and white TV when color TV's came out?

    I hate the idea of having to wear special glasses to watch my TV. I think this new move to 3D TV is a novelty that will wear off, but it won't because it is easier for companies to lock down 3D because of the larger size and proprietary equipment.

    Am I just not keeping up
  • I went and looked at BluRay players the other day, and of the 5 sold at the store I was at, none could up-scale DVD's via component video (all demanded HDMI). I got the impression from that, that none of them could do High Def *at all* via component video, let alone 3D video, and I refuse to support the HDMI "standard".

"Marriage is low down, but you spend the rest of your life paying for it." -- Baskins

Working...