- View New Content
- Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads
- Home Theater Hardware
- Theaters, Remotes and Accessories
- Equipment Reviews
- DVD & Blu-ray Reviews
- Other Diversions
- Bargains and Deals
- Feedback and Testing
- Latest Blu-ray Deals
- Blu-ray Pre-Orders
- Shop Amazon & Support HTF
- Theater Photos
DVD & Blu-ray Reviews
- Equipment Reviews
- Dolby Atmos
- Shop Amazon
- Support HTF
3-D Blu-ray Made Simple: Which would you prefer?
4 replies to this topic
Posted April 16 2009 - 03:15 AM
Option 1: Dolby method * Compatible with most current Blu-ray players (does not require new player purchase in most cases) * May require new HDTV purchase, but is compatible with many current 3D DLP HDTVs (requires new TV purchase if you do not have one of these) * Should be compatible with most current HDMI equipment (i.e. A/V receivers, scalers, etc) * Full color 3-D * Effective resolution of 960x1080 Option 2: Panasonic method * Requires new Blu-ray player purchase * Requires new HDTV purchase * Players will likely need dual HDMI outputs as the 3-D video portion will likely be incompatible with current HDMI equipment * Full color 3-D * Effective resolution of 1920x1080 What do you think? They both have some clear advantages but only one will be the Blu-ray standard.
For every shadow, no matter how deep, is threatened by morning light.
Posted April 16 2009 - 04:53 AM
Uh, a little more description might be useful. I'm not sure, off the top of my head, why you couldn't just take advantage of Blu-ray's ability to have two full-HD video streams on Profile 1.1 discs and then have the player do whatever math is necessary to combine them for anaglyph, or output them in a software-selected manner to whatever 3-D device(s) hooked up to the player.
Posted April 16 2009 - 09:55 AM
Assuming the method described in Jason Seaver's post couldn't be done, I would opt for the Panasonic method since I would have to buy a new set anyway. The cost of a new Blu-ray player would be minor in relation to the cost of a new set, so I would just replace all of the video gear. In my book, the 1920X1080 resolution of the Panasonic system trumps the 960X1080 resolution of Dolby's system. Good thing I'm not in the market for a new set for at least another 2-3 years. My old CRT rear projection set is still giving good service; although those new Samsung LED LCD sets are starting to make me a bit antsy for an upgrade. Luckily, the 4500 dollar price tag for the 55" 7000 series is tempering any desire for a new set.
"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."
Posted April 22 2009 - 04:22 AM
I really can't see either method becoming mainstream enough to warrant that much new gear to be purchased. I think 3D is a fad (again). Except for some very specific applications (such as medical imaging...maybe), I think 3D will fade just as it did in the 50's. But that's just my opinion. So, if the Panasonic is of better quality (at least it seems to be resolution-wise), I would pick that. But I don't think there will be much buy-in for either method.
Posted April 22 2009 - 07:03 AM
I would like to see projectors come onto the market that are HD ready for either system. The current state of the art in movie theatres (Real D) uses an LCD panel mounted in front of the projector to polarize the signal when it is alternating between left and right eyes. It shouldn't be difficult to add an HDMI or control out for such a unit to a projector to control the outboard panel. I'm not sure how LCD shutter glasses setups work with the new 3D ready LCDs and RP DLP displays, but I'm assuming there is some sort of control signal that goes to an outboard processor and drives the LCD shutters. When such setups become economically feasible is when we'll have mainstream acceptance of 3D in the HT realm.
"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player."-- Roger Ebert
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users