Blu-ray capacity to increase by a third Blu-ray disk capacity can increase by a third because of enhanced signal processing and a new way to evaluate media quality. Current Blu-ray disks store 25GB per layer and this can increase to 33.4GB through the use of Partial Response Maximum Likelihood (PRML) signal processing, which doesn't need any change to the existing …
...erm... only a small handful of my friends and work colleagues have blu-ray, and an equally small group actually believe that 3D films are worth the hype. The cross-over is, understandably, even smaller. I lost sight of the relative purchase rates of DVD and blu-ray after Toshiba dropped out of the HD format war, so I'm not sure that my experience is typical.
I don't see any large-scale interest in blu-ray, and personally I have zero enthusiasm for 3D telly. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the market here. I think it is compounded by the fact that you can't really upscale or 3Dify the old films that would warrant the effort, and the overwhelming majority of recent films are either complete dross or just not remarkable/distinctive enough to buy once they are released.
So, who's going to buy? And why?
totally agree - having just shelled out for a new HDTV less than 6 months ago, why on earth would I ditch a perfectly good set for a new 3DTV one? I really think they have over estimated the market - to get people to wear 3d glasses in their own homes (and I already wear glasses, so have to wear my contacts when I go to the cinema to watch 3d films) is going to be difficult. New tv, new player, new versions of films... its going to be expensive.
I have the same problem with 3D glasses. It wouldn't be so bad if say, Specsavers did some prescription 3D glasses, or if someone even did a set of clip-ons for existing glasses.
Then there is the problem of a 3D standard, there's red/blue, red/green and the Intel one as used on Monsters vs Aliens, Chuck and The Queen in 3D (and I'm guessing other shows too).
Not to mention I ain't forking out for a 3D telly too.
I don't mind the idea of a storage increase, as long as it is backwards compatible (okay, I guess the PS3 would be backwards compatible, but how about Profile 1.1 players?).
Can't help but think that the Bluray manufacturers are releasing new Bluray features just to sell more and more hardware. As it stands, I am not buying another HDTV until either the one we have breaks, or the price comes down to say around £150 for a 32" screen and I can't be arsed with 3D so I won't be buying a 3D telly until it's all you can get.
Rob
Naturally, they assume that the average user will never bother too much about the tangental offset jitter rate with multi-layer media. Surely it's a trivial exercise to cross-correlate the *Radial* Expander offset with the Focus offset to determine the media error rate from the i-MLSE index? Personally, I'd use the F’tang-F’tang Ole Biscuit Barrel effect.
... SACD was competing with DVD-Audio, but both are pretty niche products.
DAT until maybe a year or two ago was still doing well in the radio industry, at least in one station I worked at one guy who produced radio adverts wouldn't get go of his beloved DAT recorder, until it was replaced with a PC.
Mine's the one with the Minidisc recorder in the pocket.
Rob
Won't someone show Sony the INTERNET!? and when you do, get them to search for "successful Sony formats" so that maybe they get a clue.
seriously, the internet has a MUCH higher capacity than these BluRay disks, and it doesn't require everyone to buy a new bit of hardware or fill their house with disks. Surely someone at Sony has seen the decline in CD sales compared to downloads and had a quick think about what the public actually wants?
no...thought not...
Walkman
CD -co developed with philips
DVD- co developed
Mini-disc (I know you'll say it's not but after you say it's unsuccessful walk into any recording/editing studio in the world or newspaper office and then re read than and agree
Betamax --see above
Counteless broadcast/cinema cameras
SDDS--see you local cinema, well if its decent
projectors--see above
PS3--fairly sucessfull
PS2
PS1
not too mention sensors for cameras
just a few off the top of my head
oh and before you say I'm not employed by them and I'm using a dell PC, a HTC phone and a BT vision PVR, but a cybershot camera, a Sony VAIO media PC and a Walkman cos they are the best in their category!
... as BT Vision is far from perfect. From experience, mine was a buggy piece of crap.
Minidisc is still handy to have kicking around in a radio station, even though stations are generally going over to flash based recorders, as when all hell breaks loose, sometimes there aren't enough recorders to go around so a Minidisc found in the back of a cupboard is a great thing to have around.
Rob
So, of the successful formats, the following are the ones that were successful for consumers and not co-developed (multiple manufacturers provides some price competition):
- Walkman
- MiniDisc (at least in Japan)
- PS1/PS2
- maybe PS3 as a combined BluRay/games console
The fundemental problem with BluRay and it's constant updates is that their is still really no mainstream uptake of BluRay. Sure, some people are buying it and upgrading their TV's to HD ready units is helping, but the improved content comes at a step cost (IMHO) and that is holding back demand.
99% of the consumers watching movies don't care if their movie is slightly poorer quality on a 4.7GB DVD than on a 25/33/whateverGB BluRay disk if the DVD is half the price.
And if a pirated DVD is half the price and half the quality again from a dodgy bloke in a pub, they'll take that...
...for a lot of people, their connections aren't quick enough to stream video at decent speeds, Bluray players generally don't have any sort of internal storage (other than the PS3) and then there are the download limits and 'unlimited' bandwidth where you get something like 40GB. That ain't going to go far!
Discs ain't dead just yet.
Rob
This is just the sort of thing to send your average consumer running for the hills.
It'll be all right for PS3 users, who are (usually) gamers and already used to regular updates (plus the PS3 prompts you) - but explaining to other users that they need to burn files to CD or USB stick and then run them in their standalone players will be a nightmare!
Echoing the above (although, I do have Bluray at home), but also how are they allowed to call the current stereoscopic vision "3D"? There's a huge difference between the two.
I realise it's just marketing, but it's creating the same future problem as the "FullHD" phrase is:
These aren't the final versions.
Already we're seeing "QuadHD", which is surely just "H-er D"; but what happens when actual 3D footage starts to be produced (although, video games will do it first, and we already call them 3D based on the old 2D style)?
/feeling old
3D is a fad that was old twenty years ago. Worse, it is a technology that implies that the film be made around it, instead of serving the idea of the filmmaker.
We are far from holodecks, we don't even have holographic television available. It has been years since this film-with-blue-and-red-glasses technology came out, and the idea has not progressed beyond that in any way.
On top of that, I am simply not interested by 3D, and certainly not enough to change my perfectly good TV against one that will require me to wear those stupid colored glasses.
This will never take off, period.
All comments above are great points, but forget one thing: the industry will shovel the new thing down people's throats and they won't have a choice.
Of course it will be slow, or the outcry would be huge. But they are watching the trends. As more people have "HDTVs", they will fell more tempted... because selling new players and 25% (here in the US) more expensive disks is what they would love to do instead of keeping the market stagnated as it is. They don't care what is "right", or what you think about the subject. If they stop selling DVDs (alleging that now "everyone" wants BR), the average Joes out there will follow suit soon enough -- after all, their old DVD collection will still play in the new BR-players, which are getting cheaper (you can buy for $100 now, refurbished, will surely fall further). And it is the new disks or nothing, unless Joe wants to bear with the kids endlessly pestering him about the new Disney blockbuster they have to have...
The only thing that indeed throws a spanner in the works of these plans is Internet streaming -- studios are fighting Netflix over licensing exactly because of that...
Even that is not the cure all -- as my gf mentioned yesterday, she loves Netflix (cheap and always available), but there are some movies she likes so much that she wants to own them. And she's got quite a collection. I don't know if a big file in a hard drive (assuming they will start selling these things decently) would satisfy that type of demand, though.
Simple answer - no there is no need for a new HDMI cable for current 3D TV.
The current crop of 3D TVs produce the image for each eye by using alternate lines with a polarising lens on each line. They can either be fed with a signal that already has alternate lines-per-eye or with a signal where the left hand side of the screen is for the left eye and the right hand of the screen is for the right eye (the TV does the interleaving before display).
The problem is that pre-interleaved gives you roughly 540p per eye and l/r gives you SD per eye. I believe that they are working on a new version of HDMI to allow 1080p per eye, which given the extra bandwidth this will require, probably means a new HDMI cable.
SDDS wasn't much of a success - certainly not in the UK cinema industry. It might be offered in "flagship" screens, but that will generally be in addition to the other 2 digital sound formats for film.
And to illustrate the failure, Sony closed its UK SDDS office several years ago, and have since stopped manufacturing SDDS hardware (see http://www.sdds.com/PDFS/04SDDSDiscontinuationLetter.pdf). Considering both Dolby and DTS continue to manufacture and market Dolby Digital and DTS respectively, it looks a bit like betamax all over again.
The only real reason films are still released in SDDS is because of the (comparatively) greater penetration in the US market (and that as the vast majority of SDDS releases use the 'inferior' 6-channel configuration, rather than Sony's 'preferred' 8-channel the cost of adding SDDS to a release print is minimal).
Avatar on the IMAX was THE BEST 3D I HAVE EVER SEEN!
Most other 3D seemed somewhat cheesy, but if other 3D movies could be made to the quality of Avatar, they could have a hit!
The glasses required in Avatar were not cheesy red-blue glasses and the movie glasses will fit over other glasses (not requiring contact lenses.)
If a special TV/monitor AND special optical player will be required for 3D, it could be a big flop - unless glasses are not required.
Lack of standards adoption by the Blu-Ray hardware vendors will slow the adoption of Blu-Ray media. If the industry want to sell more Blu-Ray media and players - the Blu-Ray 3D players better make sure that former standard media (CD-Audio, Photo-CD, Video-CD, DVD, Blu-Ray etc.) will play back in those newer players!
People will not keep around armies of multiple players (i.e. Blu-Ray 3D, Blu-Ray, DVD, VideoCD, PhotoCD, CDText, etc.) and multiple television sets (i.e. Blu-Ray 3D, HDTV, NTSC/PAL, etc.) in the same room - the intention is to replace the older with the newer and maintain the former investments.
Only one focus point. Real 3D has as many as the Z resolution
Needs two working eyes. Real 3D works with one eye.
Stereoscopic TV doesn't work for almost 20% of people. It causes headaches in many because the focus distance is the screen. Always.
Real 3D changes view with head Movement.
This Stereoscopic TV is a misuse of the word 3D. Boycott it till they advertise it honestly.
3D is just a gimic which kind-of-works with a few films. I don't actually think it contributes anything to the experience. It makes it a slightly different experience. I saw Avatar in 3D and it seemed more like a pop-up book than a real 3D field. It also seemed to lack detail, colours weren't right and perspective is completely off when objects get too close to the plane of the cameras.
I don't want it in the home. And not because of the cost of a new panel, player and Amp (you'll need a new amp to passthru video while decoding Audio if you use bitstream not lpcm). If you want to make my TV better, give me a full colour spectrum, lower power consumption (50" Plasma = hungry), lower weight and then start working on holography. :)
But there's money to be made so it'll happen. I just hope the uptake is so slow that it eventually gets canned.
Sky want to broadcast Football in 3D in the 2010/11 season! Can you imagine inviting your friends round for a match and asking them to buy their stereoscopic glasses on the way?
They already exist so how come this article talks only about single layer discs. Obviously this is not being done to expand capacity to 34GB where there is already a way to put 50GB on a disc!
I am afraid this seems to be written by someone who doesn't know much about the subject.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
