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

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]TheGreatGrapeApe[/nom]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.[/citation]

This is the curse of the early adopter. Inevitably pricing will find it's way into the mainstream, and we'll be seeing $50 Blu-ray 3D players at Wal-mart in a couple years, and the glasses and software will follow suit. It's inevitable. Every new media technology has been overpriced on release, from CDs to DVDs to Blu-rays.

I'm in no hurry to adopt--I'm not buying a 3D Vision ready display or 120 Hz LCD TV anytime soon--so for me the crux is whether or not the tech has the potential to do what I want it to. And I've got to admit, it looks good. It's extremely clear and much better than the theater experience. It's worth seeing.

Having said that, my fingers are crossed that a software developer will support a dual-projector system, that'd be good enough for me for the next few years, at least until the brightness issue is worked on a bit. Plus, it'll give the glasses some time to drop in price.

But I have to admit, the early adopters who don't mind paying for it will appreciate today's 120 Hz displays. The clarity and quality surprised me.

 

[warezme]

3D drivers only available for 240, 300's and 400's WTF. You have far more powerful cards than that cheap a$$ 240 like the 275, 285 and 295's that should easily be able to handle 3D acceleration. What's the point of programmable shaders if the manufacture won't release the software that can use them? Even a lowly 9400GT is CUDA compatible and will accelerate programs written to make use of it? This stinks of the manufacture purposely leaving out certain cards just to sell more crap. On the mobile side, even a 9800mGTX is far more powerful than most if not all the rebadged 300 series just to make some poor shlup feel better about their new laptop.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

I mind paying for it.... but I do it anyways, because that's just me (is 9 Ultra really better than 7 Ultra? no just gave me better audio), and I complain on behalf of the other peeps, and because I'm a quarter-Scottish and quarter-German. The Scot & German in me complains about the pricing the Irish and Dutch in me pays it and invites everyone over to play with the new toys and party.
I spent $1K on hockey skates [Graf] and a new stick last week (and you know my Ski habit/costs), it's all relative, but I juts feel that the software companies are gouging, and that just irks me on a emotional but ephemeral level.

I have the hack for my Plasma to display 3D, but there's not enough content for me to even bother just yet. And with me being strictly Laptop only, it'll be a while before that's all sorted out and I purchase my next build (with a core i7 Q820M or the likes [hopefully with HDMI and 2 DP]), so until then it's PS3 3D for me when it comes.

But long term I see myself with a dual projector set-up similar to yours (but with 1080P), rather than going the shutter glasses route, which limits the utility when you entertain. I already have a 1080i/720P projector, and giant ASK projector for shooting out the van onto ski-hills and forests, but will simply buy two new ones or one of the new dual projector models, but only once the technology matures (already been burned by single colour-wheel DLP rainbows). It's still early, and the 'killer-app' title Avatar isn't even launching this year, so I just don't feel the rush other than a new toy to play with.
PS, the other thing is really, it's not THAT important, I see almost all the 3D movies the first time in IMAX, and so I'm not itching like perhaps those people who don't go out to the movies and watch only at home. Like I said it's nice, but not crucial.

 

[santiagoanders]

[citation][nom]santiagoanders[/nom]There's no need to use a 24" or smaller monitor when Mitsubishi has a line of large screen DLP TVs that are 120Hz and work with the nvidia glasses:http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vi [...] ments.html[/citation]
I retract my earlier statement. I did not realize they only took a 60Hz input (in checkerboard fashion)

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]TheGreatGrapeApe[/nom]It's still early, and the 'killer-app' title Avatar isn't even launching this year, so I just don't feel the rush other than a new toy to play with.[/citation]

Yeh, amen to that bro.

I still count myself lucky that I can't see the DLP rainbows.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Yep, I was planning on the 3 DLP projector upgrade for VanOC 2010, but they weren't priced right yet so got the 54" plasma instead. I went to watch game 7 of Habs-Pit at a friend's house and he has single DLP and it drove me crazy! So wanna make sure it works across all new titles. I've used nV 3D vision a few times now (put it on my friends' rig) and it's good, just not a 'killer app' yet for me, and I doubt it will be for me in games so much as for movies. Surround gaming and 3D movies for me. Perfect!

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]Dazzaj[/nom]Play a Bluray version of a movie compared toa DVD and the quality difference in minimal. (Yes if you take a snapshot of a single frame then there is obvious quality differences, but when actually watching it, there is virtually none.)[/citation]

I strongly disagree with this statement. If you're watching a DVD on a 40"+ screen it's painfully obvious that the quality is far lower than a Blu-ray. Even on a 32" screen, it's fairly easy to tell the difference. On smaller screens there's probably a subjective element and you're probably right as far as a lot of people not noticing, but on large screens I think the difference is too obvious not to notice.


[citation][nom]Dazzaj[/nom]The 3D idea is a gimmick only and of no real benefit etc.[/citation]

To each his own. But I suspect there was a lot of similar nay-saying on the advent of color films. Now, looking back, the nay saying is easily dismissed as nonsense.

 

[Tomtompiper]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]To each his own. But I suspect there was a lot of similar nay-saying on the advent of color films. Now, looking back, the nay saying is easily dismissed as nonsense.[/citation]

You may suspect it, but you would be wrong. However there was a lot of nay-saying at the introduction of 3D in 1952 and they were right, and in 1960 when they tried again there was nay-saying and again they got it right. as the nay-sayers did in 1985. It's the glasses that are the problem, and always will be. Until you can get rid of those stupid specs this will be a Gimmick, pure and simple.

An in depth (Pun intended) look at the science here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2010/03/the_science_of_3d_explained.html

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]Tomtompiper[/nom]You may suspect it, but you would be wrong.[/citation]

Interesting. What information are you basing that on?

[citation][nom]Tomtompiper[/nom]However there was a lot of nay-saying at the introduction of 3D in 1952 and they were right, and in 1960 when they tried again there was nay-saying and again they got it right. as the nay-sayers did in 1985. It's the glasses that are the problem, and always will be.[/citation]

Hmmm. As far as I know, polarized or alternate-frame sequencing wasn't commercially available in '52 or '60 so if you're talking anaglyph you're not comparing apples to apples here.

Even in '85, if polarized was available there was never a commercial push to put polarized ito the home, nor were the studios creating 3D content like they are today.

I don't think glasses are the problem. Looks more like a lack of content and good consumer-level solutions, both of which are available now.

Of course, we can argue all day but it'll either catch on or not. But IMHO there is too much content and industry backing for this not to get a foothold now. I guess we'll have to revisit the argument in a year to see whose right.

 

[timobkg]

[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Blu Ray looks awesome on my 30 inch 2560 x 1600p monitor. Anything less than 24" watching blu is a waste which is what these 120htz panels coming out are 23" and below wtf? I never understood the switch to the 1920 x 1080 switch to panel makers the last couple years from 1920 x 1200. If they truly want a awesome blu ray experience go with a 30 inch PC monitor or a 32" or larger HDTV. anything less than 24 inches is a waste of time.[/citation]I'll grant you that the switch from 1920x1200 to 1080p for monitors loses resolution, but it lets users get a pixel-perfect blu-ray experience (and lets them take advantage of the HDTV marketing). But I don't see where the display size matters when talking about blu-ray quality. My 21" monitor's 1680x1050 resolution is much higher than my 42" HDTV's 1366x768, and thus my 21" monitor benefits more from blu-ray than my 42" TV.

 

[zelannii]

Still no where near worth it. I'm still of Apple's mind, and BlueRay on the PC is a "bag of hurt." even a basic solution costs hundreds, to do what? Watch a movie I could watch in the comfort of my surround sound equipped living room on a bigger TV at a native resolution on a smaller screen in a less comfortable chair with sub-par sound and a pixelated 1080 resolution on a 2460x1200 screen?

Going 3D on top of this, using first generation technology, and $100 glasses? NO THANKS!

I'll wait for a true RealD native circular polarizartion 120Hz screen so I can buy cheap $2 glasses, then wait another year until the price of that screen is within $500 of the price of any other non-RealD traditional 2D screen. By that time, there might actually be 20 or 30 good 3D movies out, and Dish might have a few 3D native PPV channels too, if not the alphabets.

If I wait 2 years, I might save $2K and get the same thing i could get now, but better. Why buy now, there's what, 2 or 3 movies to watch in 3D at home?

 

[Tomtompiper]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Interesting. What information are you basing that on?Hmmm.[/citation]

It's this little thing I like to call a search engine. I use it to search the vast resource that is the Internet. On this Internet you can find lots of articles criticising 3D Cinema, but the only gripe you can find about the introduction of Colour in the movies was the cost of the Film Stock. Hence the slow take up of the Medium. Had Technicolor required the use of uncomfortable glasses then maybe there would have been more resistance.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]Tomtompiper[/nom]It's this little thing I like to call a search engine. I use it to search the vast resource that is the Internet. [/citation]

It's great that you are now an expert on everything that happened decades before you were born. I suppose the thought never crossed your mind that you don't have access to every possible bit of information, despite this 'internet'?

Nice attempt at sarcasm, but ultimately a fail.

 

[cyberlink]

[citation][nom]jsm6746[/nom]this is mostly a rehash of the article you posted by cyberlink's tom vaughan yesterday... i must say i found his article much more informative... the benchmarks were all that was needed in this... the opinion piece was unnecessary... http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,2632.html[/citation]
I disagree as well. Don is the first reporter in the world to review Blu-ray 3D on a PC, and he did a very thorough job. He asked all the right questions, investigated every possible option, and did a great job explaining it to both novice and technical readers. While there is a little overlap between our articles, I would have to say that the professional writer (Don!) did a better job explaining and illustrating how 3D display systems work. I won't be quitting my day job any time soon.

Tom Vaughan
Cyberlink

 

[cyberlink]

[citation][nom]TheGreatGrapeApe[/nom]Yep, mentioned this in the primer thread, SUCKS BIG TIME !!There are other solutions, like ArcSoft TotalMediaTheatre, and WinDVD (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 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.[/citation]
I guess you missed the "Upgrade Now" link on the PowerDVD page. Current upgrade pricing for a PowerDVD 9 Ultra customer (to PowerDVD 10 Ultra) is $59.95. http://www.cyberlink.com/store/powerdvd/upgrade_en_US.html

Tom Vaughan
Cyberlink

 

[JohnnyLucky]

I suspect the film industry push for 3D was motivated by the increased revenue generated by 3D films. Theater tickets for 3D films cost a lot more than tickets for conventional films.

 

[geok1ng]

I dont get this 3D hype:
you pay a whole lot more for a reduced brightness and lowered refresh rate, seizures, nauseas and dizziness evocking 3D experience?

AND this crap of "only 120Hz alternate frame rate can deliver full resolution experience"?
there is no way an HDMI 1.4a system can deliver "full resolution" bluray. the ma resolution is 1080p24 - i.e 1080p at 24 Hz, which only adds to the nausea, headeache and seizure inducing 3D experience.
I am sorry but i would rather watch 1440p, 1600p and 4k content.

 

[razorblaze42]

I'm happy with 1080 2D content. HD cable still has a fairly crappy channel selection, and OEM's are trying to move to 3D.... too funny. I see all hype brought to the forefront due to Avatar, but I just don't see 3D becoming mainsteam anytime in the near future. I know, I know all the 3D monitors, and player coming to market late 2010-2011, but I predict good initial sales followed by a sharp "flatline."

 

[allrock]

There is a 3D format not talked about here that produces quite impressive image quality its called Non sequencel 3D, the system uses 2 imagers and simple
passive polarization glasses, there is a company called HDI that is using laser projection technoligy and Non sequencel 3D dual imager system and this full
Res system has amasing 3D image quality and has other benifits as well they claim the system produces no eye strain or physiological effects like other
3D systems the system refrash rate is 350 Hz I beleve its a technoligy that worth looking into.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]geok1ng[/nom]AND this crap of "only 120Hz alternate frame rate can deliver full resolution experience"? [/citation]

How is that crap? There is no other way to watch 1080p Blu-ray 3D discs other than on 120 Hz AFS display.

[citation][nom]geok1ng[/nom]there is no way an HDMI 1.4a system can deliver "full resolution" bluray. the ma resolution is 1080p24 - i.e 1080p at 24 Hz, which only adds to the nausea, headeache and seizure inducing 3D experience.[/citation]

I'm not sure what your argument is here. HDMI 1.4 can most definitely deliver 1080p Blu-ray 3D films. Are you saying that 24 fps movies make you nautious?

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]3dmanifest[/nom]Also, why 120Hz?? The source is 24fps, so that doesn't fit into 120Hz properly, which means motion artifacts.[/citation]

Hmmmmm... 5 x 24 = 120
Looks like it fits perfectly to me without any pulldown trickery or motion artifacts.

[citation][nom]3dmanifest[/nom]Why not 144Hz (72Hz per eye = 3x24)Can it drop down to 96Hz (48 per eye)?[/citation]

Might happen. There are displays capable of 240 Hz out there already. but frankly, 120 Hz (60 fps per eye) is plenty smooth, I don't think any faster is necessary.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

I'll wait until all the technology matures more, and it's time to replace a TV. I probably won't buy another DLP, at least one that includes the "DLP Tax" (expensive bulbs, I dunno how the LED DLP's hold up, so the "tax" may or may not apply.) It's too expensive in this economy right now for me to upgrade to a luxury that is in its infancy and comes at a premium.

 

[Metaspherz]

The debate just shows that much more can be achieved in 3D delivery in the home. I've been a video gamer since the mid '70's. After Wolfenstein 3D ('92) I've been a fan of FPS games for nearly two decades. The FPS genre has always been the closest thing to 'real' 3D gaming for most of us. As the CGI tech improved over time so did the 3D-ness of the onscreen objects. Even audio has improved to include 3D sound that places explosions, footsteps, talking, echoes and other sounds approximately where they happened in space. Although the 'feel' is more real it's still merely an approximation of 3D-ness. With the advent of 3D glasses the depth of view has taken on an entirely new sensation of actually being in the midst of the action. I welcome the tech that has made it possible for me to view movies and games with a newer and more improved approximation of the surround-view perspective!

 

[kiss4luna]

NEED HELP!

I have an Alienware 2310 LCD and an Aurora with GTX260 cards. I have the 3D vision kit too. Installed the driver from the disk then reboot set 1920x1080 res and 120Hz refresh rate. And then installed the 3D vision software, configed the IR emmiter. But whatever option I selected in the 3D vision wizard, I just can't get it work properly. I noticed there is a hole for 3D synchonise cable in the IR emmiter but there isn't any such cable I can find in the kit. I totally get confused. I did as what the manual instructed but there was something wrong that I could not figure out.

 

[patteerr]

watch a blue-ray and 3D movies in pc is a dream for me .

it's a sweet dream . i just can wish it .