Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashartus
I've heard 3D Blu-ray is expected to be available in about a year, but will require a Blu-ray player specifically designed for it and a special TV also designed for it (so a fairly big investment). Can't remember where I saw this though.
|
Well I already have a 3D TV, I'm hoping the 3D Blu-Ray won't be locked to the Sony 3D TVs though. The PS3 will be getting a firmware update, but since my 3D TV runs of my computer and the driver for my glasses is locked to my nVidia graphics card that the nVidia player will get an update for Blu-Ray 3D and I'll be able to stick a Blu-Ray drive in my computer and play them, which would work now with 3D DVDs. Unfortunately, most of the 3D movies released lately haven't been released on 3D DVD. All there is a few bad old horror movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by awildermode
3D is just splitting what the right and left eye sees. There is no need for 'special' player or TV. you just need glasses to separate the image for the eyes, the brain does the rest.
the image is split by colour (red and green/blue glasses) or wave length (polarized lenses like the imax ones).
|
That's very inaccurate. Splitting by colour (anaglyph) doesn't require anything special, but it's also
. Any other method does require special hardware. Splitting by polarization needs special hardware, and a special player. Most 3D solutions don't use either though, they use shutterglasses, which alternately block the left and right eye. For this you need a TV with TRUE 120 Hz (or you'll see the flicker) and a 3D sync output (unless the player can handle the sync).
From the article photon linked:
Quote:
|
I guess the next wave of 3D, perhaps in twenty or thirty years, will present 'real' planes that we can focus on at will - now that's going to be something special for your grand-kids.
|
Sorry, this is just hilarious. Cameron chose to shoot with narrow depth-of-field (a choice I disagree with). It's not something that'll take 20 years to change, it was an artistic decision (possibly so that it would still have depth in 2D). In fact, I'm pretty sure most other 3D movies have a much deeper depth-of-field. Anything shot without an intentionally huge aperture (or digitally blurring) will have all the planes you could possibly want to focus on.