Blu-ray 3D On The PC: The Tom's Hardware Review

Status
Not open for further replies.

Annisman

Distinguished
May 5, 2007
1,748
0
19,810
9
The big issue I have with Blu-Ray on the PC is this: There is no free, or reasonably priced software to play Blu-Ray disks. I was pretty much forced to purchase Power DVD 10 Ultra for 110$, as there is no other application that I have found to watch Blu-Ray with. Of course you can 'screw the man' and go pirate Power DVD, but that's probably the main reason I have to shell out over a hundred bucks for the software in the first place. We need an integrated software solution for BD as it is becoming more mainstream. What happened to Blu-Ray playback being included with WMP for Windows 7 ? VLC doesn't even have a solution, what is the reason we don't have 3rd party BD software yet ? Until that is addressed, I can't see Blu-Ray on the PC being viable.
 

joytech22

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2008
1,683
0
19,810
10
I gotta say i own Nvidia's 3D vision kit + a BD drive + a GTX470 and i just cant wait until the 3D Blu-Ray's are released but first i need to replace my Samsung 2233RZ since the top 15-20% is no longer in 3D.

So far i have had a Very positive experience with Nvidia's solution!
 

jrazor247

Distinguished
Nov 21, 2009
112
0
18,710
8
seems most 3d movies are cg currently. probably the entire tool chain to edit and post process digital film has to be upgraded. adding stereoscopic cameras to production is probably the easiest. in a computer generated movie, all the processing can be converted to 3d almost natively in the rendering software. I went to a see the 3d vision setup at a blockbuster near my house. it showed games and animated movies in 3d. the real wow effect came watching footage of people skydiving in 3d. once 3d video production ramps up, its here to stay. i would be addicted to watching sports and performances in 3d. the next road block would be distribution, as the cable and sat providers would have to double bandwidth - artifacts from over compression would def ruin 3d.
 

johnb4467

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2008
15
0
18,510
0
If the hardware settles 7 stabilizes, this is something I would be interested in, whether it's for the PC or the upcoming PS3 firmware update.
I do agree, however, that there needs to be more built-in support for software. I'm sure that will find its way into apps such as XBMC and Plex eventually.
This is going to be hardest for consumers to adopt who have sunk a lot of money into existing HDTV's...especially ones who 'claimed' 120hz refresh rates -- but won't work with 3D. My own TV is a low-end Westinghouse 1080p, so down the road I wouldn't mind upgrading...if the material and quality is there!
FYI: I had older shutter glasses on my old PC & CRT display -- with a fast enough refresh rate...no headaches; it's really not an issue (current demos have confirmed this).
 

toxxel

Distinguished
Apr 14, 2009
68
0
18,630
0
I wear glasses already, wearing another pair of glasses over my own is an annoyance. I've never really been a fan of 3D since my eyesight mostly keeps me from seeing anything 3D. I can see nearly perfect out of one eye but the other is another story. My first experience of a 3D polarized movie was Avatar. What I saw didn't impress, blurriness, strange effects from pronounced objects on the screen, felt distracted and ruined many scenes. I understand it's my eyesight that caused problems but I feel 3D won't become main stream simply because of the glasses, but if it were to I'd feel completely alienated seeing I don't have the same experience.
 

gti88

Distinguished
Jul 11, 2009
242
0
18,680
0
Unfortunately, I don't expect the 3d to come to Formula 1 soon. At least, until Ecclestone is no longer in charge.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]jsm6746[/nom]this is mostly a rehash of the article you posted by cyberlink's tom vaughan yesterday... [/citation]

I disagree with you there. Tom's article is a great Blu-ray 3D white paper, but it's not a Blu-ray 3D review. We did have to duplicate some of the information briefly so this article could stand on its own, but the focus of either article is quite different.
 

cknobman

Distinguished
May 2, 2006
944
0
18,980
0
3d at home can suck it.

New tv's, special glasses, limited viewing angles, new media, new monitors, special software to play them, new blue ray players, etc.., etc...

Not to mention the general discomfort associated with having to watch things in 3d, the fact that 3d is NOT suitable for all situations, many people in the general public have an impairment that wont allow them to enjoy 3d, etc.., etc...

Let this fad fade away and quickly!!! Im not reinvesting thousands and thousands of dollars into this new marketing gimmick. Its another way for the entertainment industry to make even more money off us. Now the push it to make all movies 3d and charge a mandatory 15-20 bucks per ticket to see it.

Its just sad there is such a large portion of the population that mindlessly follows anything presented to them and like zombies will pay what they are told without regard to the cost/benefit ratio.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]cknobman[/nom]Its just sad there is such a large portion of the population that mindlessly follows anything presented to them and like zombies will pay what they are told without regard to the cost/benefit ratio.[/citation]

You certainly have the right to your subjective opinion cknob.

However, your inability to experience a benefit from something doesn't automatically indicate that everyone else who does is a zombie. It's like a color blind person calling people names because they enjoy color movies.
 

gsacks

Distinguished
Jul 31, 2008
176
0
18,680
0
I have to agree that 3D is mostly a fad, and that it isn't likely to take hold in the home market as anything other than a niche product. On the other hand, if you are fortunate enough to have a real home theater with a front projector, then 3D becomes a pretty cool feature. Of course that projector would need to support 3D. I'm not planning to replace mine anytime soon.
 

cknobman

Distinguished
May 2, 2006
944
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]You certainly have the right to your subjective opinion cknob. However, your inability to experience a benefit from something doesn't automatically indicate that everyone else who does is a zombie. It's like a color blind person calling people names because they enjoy color movies.[/citation]

I should have been more clear when calling people zombies. In that regard I was referring to the countless number of people currently supporting this sham at the box office of extorting the consumer. For years 3D movies (in my area at least) never charged a premium and were only considered a "extra feature" for some movies. Now that Avater came out and 3D is popular they suddenly decide to charge 50% more (and even double in some cases) for 3D? And people just mindlessly follow what they are told, like...well zombies. Its just upsetting that so many people are clueless and just dont care so they support an ecosystem like this forcing us that do pay attention and care to suffer.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]cknobman[/nom]In that regard I was referring to the countless number of people currently supporting this sham at the box office of extorting the consumer. For years 3D movies (in my area at least) never charged a premium and were only considered a "extra feature" for some movies. Now that Avater came out and 3D is popular they suddenly decide to charge 50% more (and even double in some cases) for 3D?[/citation]

I'm not sure what it's like in your town, but in my city there's always an option to see the film in 2D or 3D. There is a $3 premium for 3D here, and the glasses/3d projector system cost the theater something. To me that $3 seems reasonable for the experience and I don't think anyone making that choice deserves to be called an unpleasant name. If I had to pay double I suppose I might be voting with my wallet and avoiding 3D films, that's our right as consumers.


[citation][nom]cknobman[/nom]And people just mindlessly follow what they are told, like...well zombies. Its just upsetting that so many people are clueless and just dont care so they support an ecosystem like this forcing us that do pay attention and care to suffer.[/citation]

I don't agree, like I said... people vote with their wallets. If they're paying extra to see the 3d version, that implies that they see a value in that. Early adopters will pay a price, but the movie studios are paying an R&D price, too, not to mention the premium the theaters pay for showing 3D in the first place.

Regardless, I'm not seeing much justification for applying an insulting name to folks who see a value associated with a 3D theater experience.
 

saravis4

Distinguished
Jan 24, 2008
18
0
18,510
0
I don't get what the big deal with 3d is. Its an amusing novelty at the theater, but it seems pointless in the home. You have to pay for special glasses, have a monitor that has 120hz functionality, and a graphics card that can handle the technology, and, since we're on the topic of PC, software that can play it: all just so you can get improved depth of field, that is it. It seems a total waste of money for such a miniscule improvement.
 

daniel joy

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2010
9
0
18,510
0
you guys can get a 65" DLP for 1000$ (i have one) or 400- 500$ for a nice 3d projector that is just as nice as the latest 1.4a HDMI tv's. how is this super expensive? Nvidia supports over 400 games right now- and they look great on the DLP.

i love all the haters comments- you guys probably have never played a pc game in 3d- or are ATI fanboys that cannot use 3d on there hardware.

i have 3d and it is awesome- i wont even buy games anymore that do not support 3d. 2d sucks....3d is so much more immerse... you have no idea what you are missing with metro 2033 in 3d.

People should be aware that the latest HDMI 1.4a hdtv's can do full hd blue ray- but thats it- pc gaming is still half rez or 720p, no any better then checkerboard. the HDMI chips cannot do the required bandwidth for 1080p 60hrz per eye. The computer monitors can do full HD as they use DVI. SO this new generation is a fail from my view point. not any better than legacy tv's but much more expensive. The specs are all very confusing, and there are lots of people being misled by the Tv manufactures. Full HD gaming is in the HDMI specs- but the hardware cannot support the bandwith as of now.
 

pharge

Distinguished
Feb 23, 2009
464
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]annisman[/nom]The big issue I have with Blu-Ray on the PC is this: There is no free, or reasonably priced software to play Blu-Ray disks. I was pretty much forced to purchase Power DVD 10 Ultra for 110$, as there is no other application that I have found to watch Blu-Ray with. .[/citation]

FOr your information, there is another Blu-ray playing software call WinDVD pro 2010 which is currently on sale for $39.99
(http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite/us/en/Product/1189528458632#versionTabview=tab1&tabview=tab0)

Yes it is still not free, but at least it is cheaper.

I have been watching Blu-ray on my desktop w/ the earlier vierson of WinDVD. It works very well on my computer.

Hope this info helps..;)

Ps: I have not seen any word from WinDVD about Blu-ray 3D yet...
 
[citation][nom]annisman[/nom]The big issue I have with Blu-Ray on the PC is this: There is no free, or reasonably priced software to play Blu-Ray disks. I was pretty much forced to purchase Power DVD 10 Ultra for 110$, as there is no other application that I have found to watch Blu-Ray with.[/citation]

Yep, mentioned this in the primer thread, SUCKS BIG TIME !!
There are other solutions, like ArcSoft TotalMediaTheatre, and WinDVD ([strike]hey Pharge that $40 is on top of the basic install which is still nicer than buying the whole thing i you already have the base[/strike] EDIT: wow it's on sales this week for $40 for the Pro edition, good deal]), which is essentially the problem with all of them is you have to pay full pop for a major upgrade.

I have Power DVD 5, Power DVD 7 OEM, Power DVD 7 Ultra, and Power DVD 9 Ultra, and now for 3D BR I would have to pay $94.95 for just getting 3D, OOOooooh I save $5 off for being a 'loyal customer', but seriously, that's about $250 on software that would buy 2 standalone units, all of this was to support my $400 BluRay drive.

I would be interested in seeing WinDVD's approach to this if it will be more modular the way their BR support is, but right now it's still further in the future.

I don't expect it to be free, but I also don't expect it to be the cost of a standalone player for each upgrade, $25 seems about right to me. As if it costs anywhere near as much to get it to me as a physical player. :sarcastic:
 

Strider-Hiryu_79

Distinguished
May 5, 2010
245
0
18,680
0
I'd rather be on the couch enjoying my soon to be owned(summer can't come soon enough) 52" sony XBR LX900 3D HDTV and 3D blu-ray player and surround sound system then sit on a computer chair hunchbacked trying to watch a movie on an 24" monitor.

But that's just me.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]Strider-Hiryu_79[/nom]I'd rather be on the couch enjoying my soon to be owned(summer can't come soon enough) 52" sony XBR LX900 3D HDTV and 3D blu-ray player and surround sound system then sit on a computer chair hunchbacked trying to watch a movie on an 24" monitor.But that's just me.[/citation]

Well, an HTPC can drive that 52" sony with all that a PC offers, plus 3DTV play will be able to drive Blu-ray 3D on that display as well.

I don't think anyone is saying standalone Blu-ray 3D and big-screen TVs are bad, but PC home theater systems offer their own benefits.

The point is, you will basically be able to do whatever you want... standalone Blu-ray 3D player with a 52" TV? sure. HTPC Blu-ray 3D player with that 52" TV? sure.
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]Alchemy69[/nom]Can the lack of brightness not just be compensated for by turning up the brightness on the monitor?[/citation]

Nope. That's essentially what I did for this review, but you're losing a shedload of brightness with the shutter glasses.

I expect we'll see 3D TVs with increasing brightness to compensate for this over the next few years, this is probably a feature that will get some R&D from the manufacturers. But for now it's notably dark, not unwatchable but something you'll notice.
 

Tomtompiper

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2010
382
0
18,780
0
It's a Gimmick and a damn expensive one at that. Also until they sort out the problem of watching for those who already wear glasses it's an impractical Gimmick! Give me a bigger Screen for the money every time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts