Sony Intros 3D Blu-ray Player

[Smokey]

Sony today launched the new BDP-S470 stand-alone Blu-ray 3D™-ready player. The model can be upgraded to play Blu-ray 3D content with a firmware update available this summer.

The company also announced that the previously introduced BDP-S570 Blu-ray Disc™ model and the BDV-E770W and BDV-E570 Blu-ray Disc home theater systems will be Blu-ray 3D capable with firmware updates available this summer.

In addition to Blu-ray 3D playback, when connected to a broadband Internet network, all of the new models instantly stream movies, videos, music, and more from Netflix®, Amazon Video On Demand, YouTube™, Slacker® Internet Radio, Pandora® (Coming Spring 2010), NPR, Sony Pictures, Sony Music.

Unique to the new models, users with an iPhone® or iPod® touch device can control the players using a free app called “BD Remote” that can be downloaded from the Apple App store. The app allows an iPhone or iPod touch device to function as a remote control that includes the ability to access a Blu-ray Disc’s details such as jacket artwork, actor, and production information as well as search for additional video clips online.

The models also offer improved start up and disc loading performance. The stand-alone Blu-ray Disc players can start-up from power off in about three seconds.

Available in February/March for about $200.

[atomicAdam]

will this finally be the nail in the coffin for the the theater, or will home 3D just never replace the whole 'going to the movies'?

[Smokey]

will this finally be the nail in the coffin for the the theater, or will home 3D just never replace the whole 'going to the movies'?

Given that 3D have been around for decades and it is still a niche concept for movie theater meduim, 3D might also go the same route for TV medium.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Given that 3D have been around for decades and it is still a niche concept for movie theater meduim, 3D might also go the same route for TV medium.

This is not the same 3D as the past, you have to remember that. For movies, I think it is a boon, for TV, that I don't know about.

[bobsticks]

will this finally be the nail in the coffin for the the theater, or will home 3D just never replace the whole 'going to the movies'?

I've heard that 3D will be a major area of tech push for the studios but I'm going to agree with Smokey. Until we move towards holography I suspect 3D will remain a niche product...getting grown adults to consistently wear them goofy-azz glasses is a hard sell...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I've heard that 3D will be a major area of tech push for the studios but I'm going to agree with Smokey. Until we move towards holography I suspect 3D will remain a niche product...getting grown adults to consistently wear them goofy-azz glasses is a hard sell...

If you buzz around the AV sites, folks are really looking forward to 3D in the home. Remember, it is us guys that convince other grown adults to buy into Blu ray, and then 3D Blu ray.

I don't really think it will be that hard to get adults to wear them goofy-azz glasses. They had no problem getting them to wear them watching Avatar in 3D.

[pixelthis]

If you buzz around the AV sites, folks are really looking forward to 3D in the home. Remember, it is us guys that convince other grown adults to buy into Blu ray, and then 3D Blu ray.

I don't really think it will be that hard to get adults to wear them goofy-azz glasses. They had no problem getting them to wear them watching Avatar in 3D.

The headaches will not be so easy a sell, however.
Its a push to run 3D in a two hour+ movie, for the marathon TV watching most Americans
do (eight hours a day, on average) something will have to give, most likely.

[pixelthis]

Tried it in the fifties.
DUD.
The eighties, with "shutter" glasses and polarized glassed.
DUD.
And now, with tech that looks suspicously like the shutter glasses of the eighties.
I have seen 3D crash and burn more than a third world airline.
Excuse me iffen I am skeptical.
Brain damage is a hard sell.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The headaches will not be so easy a sell, however.
Its a push to run 3D in a two hour+ movie, for the marathon TV watching most Americans
do (eight hours a day, on average) something will have to give, most likely.

Over time I am sure some Manufacturer will come up with a way to do 3D sans the glasses that works within the spec of Blu ray 3D. The earliest attempts at doing this may free you of the glasses, but it requires your head to remain in a vice like single position, or the effect just turns into a blur.

Funny, the folks that reported they got headaches from the red/blue system, are now saying the new system does NOT give them head aches.

[Woochifer]

I've heard that 3D will be a major area of tech push for the studios but I'm going to agree with Smokey. Until we move towards holography I suspect 3D will remain a niche product...getting grown adults to consistently wear them goofy-azz glasses is a hard sell...

Over 75% of the tickets sold for Avatar have been for the 3D screenings. The box office returns over the last few years prove that 3D has evolved beyond niche status. It's not a hard sell if moviegoers are already choosing the 3D screenings when given a choice. If anything, the move to 3D TV simply follows where the market demand has gone.

[pixelthis]

Grimmick.
NOT ready for prime time.
There is something that screams unnatural to the human (and talkys) brain.
Got a looonnng way to go before you can fool the most advanced thinking machine on the planet.

[Feanor]

Grimmick.
NOT ready for prime time.
There is something that screams unnatural to the human (and talkys) brain.
Got a looonnng way to go before you can fool the most advanced thinking machine on the planet.

May not a gimmick given the new technology; I enjoyed it during Avatar in the big screen, (and I wear glasses all the times so having to put on the 3Ds wasn't such a big imposition).

But I don't see it coming to the small screen near me anytime soon. Afterall, I'm still working to get an HDTV, then a BRP, nevermind the 3D versions. When the latter will hit the streets they will be price to skim the affluent (or stupid) first adopters. Speaking for poor people everywhere, I'm weary being made to constantly feel deprived and inferior because I can't afford the latest/greatest.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

will this finally be the nail in the coffin for the the theater, or will home 3D just never replace the whole 'going to the movies'?

No, the theater still has a trump card that will probably never reach the home. It is called Ionsonic 3D sound.

[nightflier]

What will be required on the hardware side to get 3D sound to match the 3D video? I imagine it would be pretty irritating to hear an arrow/plane/helicopter wizzing behind, but to see the thing in front of you or off in a different direction.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What will be required on the hardware side to get 3D sound to match the 3D video? I imagine it would be pretty irritating to hear an arrow/plane/helicopter wizzing behind, but to see the thing in front of you or off in a different direction.

Meh, we have gotten pretty good at mixing audio for 3D. However, Sony, Warner, Universal, and Paramount will probably have to give up the practice of dumping theater mixes directly on to disc. These mixes are not optimized for the home environment, and you will occasionally find a panning mistakes, and a soundstage that is too wide for hometheater size screens. .

At Disney, we do not use theater mixes for our home movies. The soundtracks for our DVD's and Blu rays have been optimized for smaller rooms, and are re-mixed in a hometheater size studio(mine).

I just instituded a new workflow practice for our 3D mixes. Instead of doing re-recording(soundtrack creations and finalization) in a large dubbing stage, we are going to start mixing 3D movie soundtracks in smaller studios FIRST, and then go to the dubbing stage to tweak that mix for theatrical presentation. It makes it easier to create a single mix that just needs to be tweak for each environment instead of going back to the original stems to create a hometheater mix optimized for the home.

[E-Stat]

It makes it easier to create a single mix that just needs to be tweak for each environment instead of going back to the original stems to create a hometheater mix optimized for the home.

Kewl. Less unnecessary fiddling usually results in a better product.

rw

[kexodusc]

I visited mom and dad's the other day and sat through the abortion that was Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D...ugh. Terrible movie, not great 3D effects..but that's not what my comment is...

On their 51" screen while watching the odd 3D effect, I thought back to Avatar and what it would be like on this TV in 3D. I couldn't help but feel the value of 3D would be pretty insignificant. I think 3D works great in the theater on the big screen...It would probably work well for those of us with projectors and where the screen occupies more of your field of view....but on screens smaller than 60" inches...meh...nice to have, but diminished effect, i suspect.

If 3D will be confined largely to a small sphere around the screen itself, this could severely limit the coolness factor. On 40" or 30" screen, why bother?

Can't help but feel 3D is something that will distinguish theater from home theater and really enhance the movie going experience, restore some of that much needed magic to the moovees, but until display sizes get sufficiently big for everyone, I'm doubtful 3D will be a home theater staple any time soon.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I visited mom and dad's the other day and sat through the abortion that was Journey to the Center of the Earth in 3D...ugh. Terrible movie, not great 3D effects..but that's not what my comment is...

On their 51" screen while watching the odd 3D effect, I thought back to Avatar and what it would be like on this TV in 3D. I couldn't help but feel the value of 3D would be pretty insignificant. I think 3D works great in the theater on the big screen...It would probably work well for those of us with projectors and where the screen occupies more of your field of view....but on screens smaller than 60" inches...meh...nice to have, but diminished effect, i suspect.

Actually almost all of the demo's I have seen have been on 50" or 52" screens, and I found the effect not diminished at all on those sizes. I have also seen demo's of 3D games done on a 40", and as long as you sit close enough, the effect is the same as you would get with a 50" and above. It is more about your viewing distance than it is about the screen size.

If 3D will be confined largely to a small sphere around the screen itself, this could severely limit the coolness factor. On 40" or 30" screen, why bother?

It is not really about the screen size Kex, it is about viewing distance, because the reality is that no matter what size the screen is, the 3D effect is scaled to the glasses anyway.

Can't help but feel 3D is something that will distinguish theater from home theater and really enhance the movie going experience, restore some of that much needed magic to the moovees, but until display sizes get sufficiently big for everyone, I'm doubtful 3D will be a home theater staple any time soon.

Actually I think the ONLY thing that will distinguish the theater these days is Iosonic 3D audio, as that is the only technology that cannot be scaled to a home theater mostly because of the price(a dedicated room can easily handle a scaled down version of the technology).

Most of the folks I have spoken to on the 3D issue say that 3D in the home will probably be MORE consistent than in the theater because theaters have bulbs in their projector that are in various shapes of decay. Many theater owners(because of price) are using bulbs long past the time they no longer meet SMPTE spec for light output, which means the 3D effect can sometimes be inconsistent from theater to theater. That will not happen in the home where the decay time of most bulbs is a lot longer and more gradual than in theaters.

[nightflier]

Well, I'm skeptical about 3D in the home for several reasons, some mentioned already. I think in the end it will be a niche product because of the smaller number of people who will benefit:

1. It really only works with large screens and "sitting closer" is not a realistic option, if we're talking about movies instead of games.

2. It's great for action films, but less so for your Michael Clayton or Young Elizabeth type dramas.

3. It will require people to wear goggles - this is fine in theaters, where people don't get up, pause or talk to others, but that does not work as well in the home. And for those of us who wear glasses, this is even more of a problem.

4. It will be added to BR, but that's also just a portion of the movie-watching public.

5. It will require new players, something that will be a hard sell in a shrinking economy.

6. Unless I understood this wrong, there isn't yet a standard for sound to accompany 3D video, and when it arrives, it will also require the purchase of new receivers/processors.

7. There is the psychological factor too: in a shrinking economy, people want simpler, less complicated things. 3D is something that ads to the complexity. In the theaters, this is handled by the house, but in the home, this is the responsibility of the owner and may be more than s/he wishes to add.

8. Another market factor is that there are fewer B&M stores where 3D can be marketed and showcased. This will be a much harder product to sell online, where much of the gear will be sold.

9. It's no secret that this technology is being hailed as somethig that could resurect a shrinking market for A/V. But by the same token, this marketing line also smacks of "gimmick," an artifice to sell more product. This will be a turn-off for some consumers.

10. Now I know not many here share my view that smaller screens are growing in popularity at the expense of larger screens in the home. But if that is true, then my point #1 above will have an even greater effect.

IMO, all these factors point to 3D being another niche product/standard. Yes, it will arrive in the home for some, but not for many, it may very well become the "SACD" of this decade.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, I'm skeptical about 3D in the home for several reasons, some mentioned already. I think in the end it will be a niche product because of the smaller number of people who will benefit:

It helps if you come loaded with the proper information before you come to conclusions.

1. It really only works with large screens and "sitting closer" is not a realistic option, if we're talking about movies instead of games.

If you sit the proper distance to realize all of the pixels in your 1080p picture, then you are at the right distance for 3D. If you are not sitting the proper distance from the television, then even your 1080p televsion is a waste of money.

2. It's great for action films, but less so for your Michael Clayton or Young Elizabeth type dramas.

I do not think anyone is talking about encoding every movie in 3D

3. It will require people to wear goggles - this is fine in theaters, where people don't get up, pause or talk to others, but that does not work as well in the home. And for those of us who wear glasses, this is even more of a problem.

I wear glasses, it hasn't decreased my enjoyment of 3D. What is fine in the theater is perfectly fine at home. The theater has 5.1, is that bad for the home? I don't think so. The theater has a large screen scaled for the auditorium, is that bad for the home, I don't think it is. The theater is dark when we watch movies, is that bad for the home as well? I don't think so.

If you are talking, you are not watching anything. And if you decide to pause the movie, just remove the glasses, do what you are going to do, put the glasses back on, and watch the movie. We are not talking about a straight jacket here, they are just glasses. You are making a mountain out of a molehill AGAIN!

4. It will be added to BR, but that's also just a portion of the movie-watching public.

Did you know that there will be a couple of 3D television channels on air before then end of the year?

5. It will require new players, something that will be a hard sell in a shrinking economy.

It does not require new player if you have a PS3, and let's face it, there are far more PS3 out there being used as blu ray players than standalones. So this is not correct. The new players cost only $200 dollars, which put them in the same ballpark as a regular profile 2.0 player.

6. Unless I understood this wrong, there isn't yet a standard for sound to accompany 3D video, and when it arrives, it will also require the purchase of new receivers/processors.

You don't need a different audio codec for 3D, they don't use proprietary codecs in the theater to accompany 3D. It is lossless PCM audio, which is essentially the same as Dts HD Master audio or Dolby TrueHD. Where do you get your information? Why would you think you need another audio codec?(slaps head)

7. There is the psychological factor too: in a shrinking economy, people want simpler, less complicated things. 3D is something that ads to the complexity. In the theaters, this is handled by the house, but in the home, this is the responsibility of the owner and may be more than s/he wishes to add.

This is a pile of BS and you know it. It is nothing more than putting on a pair of glasses, pushing the disc in the player, and enjoying the movie. Good gracious, you sure know how to make blowing your nose as complex as sending a man to the moon.

8. Another market factor is that there are fewer B&M stores where 3D can be marketed and showcased. This will be a much harder product to sell online, where much of the gear will be sold.

Are you out of your empty tree? Your demo is the movie theater, as you are using EXACTLY the same technology as they use in the theater. Every time a movie comes out to the theater in 3D, that is your demo. The theaters sell the technology for you. Then there are going to be several traveling demo's, just like there was when Blu ray was introduced. This is not a new product hitting the market, this is already in theater, and it is coming to the home.

9. It's no secret that this technology is being hailed as somethig that could resurect a shrinking market for A/V. But by the same token, this marketing line also smacks of "gimmick," an artifice to sell more product. This will be a turn-off for some consumers.

This is the case for every new AV product to hit the market, and every computer product as well. I think the Ipad is a gimmick, and it certainly has turned people off, but I just do not see that in AV circles concerning 3D. AV enthusiasts want the same thing they see in the theater in their homes.

10. Now I know not many here share my view that smaller screens are growing in popularity at the expense of larger screens in the home. But if that is true, then my point #1 above will have an even greater effect.

The reason not many agree with you is because it is not true. This is just someting invented in your head. Like I am going to trade in my 60" Kuros for a 2.5 phone or portable display device. This is beyond idiotic. Once again, where is your proof that smaller screens are supplanting larger screens? No proof, no belief, bottom line.

IMO, all these factors point to 3D being another niche product/standard. Yes, it will arrive in the home for some, but not for many, the "SACD" of this decade.

I guess 3D is going to be a huge success because you "O"(as in opinion) is oh for two so far.

I think when somebody comes to conclusions, they need to be educated on all sides of the issue.(not making $hit up from thin air) You haven't even gotten the basics right, which make your conclusions wrong from the start. Of course, this is par for the course for you.

[Woochifer]

Well, I'm skeptical about 3D in the home for several reasons, some mentioned already. I think in the end it will be a niche product because of the smaller number of people who will benefit:

How many different ways can you possibly be wrong? Same thing was said about HDTV and Blu-ray. HDTV already dominates sales, and some analysts are already projecting that the major manufacturers will discontinue DVD players in favor of Blu-ray within two years.

1. It really only works with large screens and "sitting closer" is not a realistic option, if we're talking about movies instead of games.

Weren't you predicting that 3D would hit portable devices? Now you're saying that it only works with large screens? Make up your mind, or at least keep things straight.

3. It will require people to wear goggles - this is fine in theaters, where people don't get up, pause or talk to others, but that does not work as well in the home. And for those of us who wear glasses, this is even more of a problem.

Like T, I also wear glasses to the movies ... no issues whatsoever with 3D screenings.

5. It will require new players, something that will be a hard sell in a shrinking economy.

I use a PS3, just a simple firmware update is all that's needed to add the 3D capability. The hard sell will be the new TVs. But, as with all upgraded technologies, it's only a matter of time before prices tumble and the new feature becomes standard issue. This has happened with every major home theater advance over the past 20 years.

7. There is the psychological factor too: in a shrinking economy, people want simpler, less complicated things. 3D is something that ads to the complexity. In the theaters, this is handled by the house, but in the home, this is the responsibility of the owner and may be more than s/he wishes to add.

Repeating BS doesn't make it so. As I stated before, in a shrinking economy, people still want more, but are only willing to pay less. HDTV sales have continued to increase even in this shrinking economy. Average TV screen sizes are getting larger, not smaller. TVs in people's homes now come with more features, not less.

For the same price that someone pays for an unlocked Nexus One smartphone, they can buy a 42" HDTV. In that kind of comparison, which buy is the more extravagant one?

9. It's no secret that this technology is being hailed as somethig that could resurect a shrinking market for A/V. But by the same token, this marketing line also smacks of "gimmick," an artifice to sell more product. This will be a turn-off for some consumers.

How's it a gimmick when movie theater returns have shown a consistent trend where audiences are choosing the 3D screenings? How would it be a turn-off for consumers? Marketing is all about creating buzz ... much like those fancy smartphones that you're so fond of.

10. Now I know not many here share my view that smaller screens are growing in popularity at the expense of larger screens in the home. But if that is true, then my point #1 above will have an even greater effect.

"Not many" share your views on this issue because they are flat out wrong.

How can smaller screens be growing "at the expense" of larger screens, when those larger screens continue to gain in sales and get larger, and the viewing time for those larger screens continues to increase? The gain in TV viewing time alone last year was greater than the TOTAL COMBINED viewing time for online and mobile video. Every single study done of viewing habits points to online and mobile video as the "niche."

As I've stated repeatedly, people will watch mobile and online video for short bursts at a time. That has been proven in the viewing data. What most people won't do is sit there for hours at a time watching a movie on a 2.5" screen or even at a desk on a computer monitor.

IMO, all these factors point to 3D being another niche product/standard. Yes, it will arrive in the home for some, but not for many, it may very well become the "SACD" of this decade.

Wrong. The MPEG-4 MVC extension that allows for 3D viewing is already a standard on Blu-ray and with the upcoming 3D broadcast channels. Studios have already announced release dates for the first batch of titles. More 3D movies are in the pipeline because audiences demand it. Those same movies will start coming out in 3D on the day and date Blu-ray releases. This level of adoption with new releases was never achieved with SACD (think hard, aside from a few classical titles how many day and date SACD new releases did you ever see?). The adoption of Blu-ray with day and date releases is the reason why that format has grown as quickly as it has.

[nightflier]

Sorry to disappoint you guys, but your contentions are as usual short-sided. And the pathetic insults don't help your case either. Let's review:

Regarding screen size:

Lil't brought up the gaming factor and said that it was just a matter of adjusting where one sits. This is nonsense. Not only is the gaming part a bit off-topic, here, but people are not going to move their couches each time they want to watch a 3D title. They'll more likely just put up with the less than ideal small size and not get anywhere near the enjoyment they had at the theater.

On what movies will be 3D:

Cute how Wooch decided to ignore that point entirely. Yes, lil't I'm fully aware that not all films will be 3D, and as usual, you're making my point: less reasons to buy into it; limited use = limited interest in 3D = niche.

On the use of the goggles:

Cute how you both only address the concern for people who wear glasses and dismiss it as insignificant. Let's address that point first, then, since it's so "unimportant" to you both. What I'm reading online is that people who wear glasses don't like wearing these - it's like having to wear those goofy tourist sunglasses over your own glasses.

But more to the point, in the theater, people will put up with it, because the environment doesn't encourage moving from one's seat, talking, looking at anything else, and of course, certainly not pausing the movie to go to the bathroom or fill up on another bag of chips. This is completely different from the environment at home. In addition, in the home, this becomes another accessory that collects dust, sits on coffee tables, drops on the floor, gets lost in the couch, the dog chews up, or that someone inadvertently steps on. Since you two both wear glasses, surely you can appreciate how irritating that is when these things happen to your glasses. I'm not saying this is a death-nail in the coffin of 3D, but it's another in a long list of impediments.

On this being really targeted at the BR market:

Funny, how lil't completely avoids the point and goes off on a tangent about TV channels. As someone who rants and raves when someone deviates from the topic in his own posts, I find this quite hypocritical. Wooch, being the selective careful type, didn't even address the point at all - how convenient. We'll just presume you two have the exact same view on this.

In any case, this point is another impediment to 3D adaption. BR is only a portion of the movie-buying public, and 3D will be a portion of that. These facts would tend to point to a niche product, no? Well if not, then tell us why. Don't just hide behind petty insults or bringing up esoteric factoids.

On 3D requiring new players:

Another cute deflection with the whole "it won't affect me, because my player won't need more than a firmware upgrade" line. Hey, you two hypocrites: this isn't just about you. How many times haven't you slammed someone for making just that kind of argument? If it doesn't affect you, that isn't representative of everyone else, right? How many times do I have to paraphrase your own tired criticisms back to you? I have news for you two: we're half-way through my 10 points, and you haven't even made a dent in one of them. So much for making a case.

I'm glad the PS3 will only need a firmware upgrade. I was talking about BR players. Most of them will require more. That will be a fun little reality check for all those who have upgraded all their gear to BR recently.

But that's OK, because it's only for a few movies, anyhow, right? How exactly does this not point to a niche product? Are you even reading what I'm writing? 'Cause you sure aren't doing a good job of addressing the points.

On requiring new audio gear:

So on the one hand lil't says it will require gear that supports new codecs, but it will not require new gear? I didn't say I understood this clearly anyhow, so maybe on of you two geniuses can enlighten us.

About people wanting simpler gear:

This is actually true, whether you want to believe it or not. Last time lil't tried to convince us that just as people want everything bigger (like bigger cars & TVs), they also want things that are more complex. Absolutely false. People can't afford big and complex, they want small and simple. back to basics, if you will. New home sizes are smaller, new cars are smaller, and yes, I believe this will trickle down to new TV sales figures too. So let's stop looking at last year's industry-published figures and step into the present shall we? In a down economy, people want smaller and simpler, that's simply a fact of economics. Just because you have found a small shred of evidence that would appear to point in a different direction with TVs, the fact that the rest of the economy points in the other direction, would seem to me a pretty important factor too.

3D ads complexity, cost, and tedium. In a down economy, people don't want that. Sure marketers will push in the other direction, but they're not the ones buying the gear. Marketers will tell you the exact opposite, and that is where you're getting your "facts" from, I'm afraid. If you're so confident about this not being the case, why not start a new thread with a simple survey: who here will buy into 3D and who considers it a gimmick? I'm pretty sure you won't like the results - and this population isn't quite representative of the general public, but I think the results will speak for themselves.

On showcasing 3D:

The theaters are not the right environment for showcasing 3D, and you both know this - you just don't want to admit it. People see the theater as a place where they pay for a service, not as a place that compares in any way with their home systems: different scale, different environment, different gear, and different sound. The idea that this will be the same in the home is laughable, and people will not believe it anyhow. With fewer B&M stores, there just will be less places where people will see how 3D will be something else they need to buy for their homes.

And if you're thinking that Best Buy is going to make up for that, let's remember how long their demo equipment lasts in the hands of the zillions of customers who handle the gear. How long do you think those pesky 3D glasses will last? And even when brand new, how many people will be able to watch the 3D showcase at a time? If people can't demo it, they will be less likely to buy it; simple as that.

On 3D being a marketing gimmick:

Yes, that is what I'm reading online - no not from the commercial reviewers, of course, but that's what the comments at the bottom of the webpages pretty much boil down to. Of course, you two only read the official (read: industry-sanctioned) drivel, so you wouldn't know that. Whether you two want to admit it or not, in a shrinking economy, people don't just become more tight with their wallets, they also become more suspicious of just this kind of marketing. That's simply the way it is. Again, on it's own, this won't affect sales dramatically, but combined with the other points above, this is another factor, whether you want to admit it or not (probably not, but we know that already - after all, lil't' depends on it succeeding, right?).

On smaller screens growing in popularity:

Yes, you can dismiss it all you want, but it won't make it go away. The latest report from IDC says that smart phones alone will grow from over $125 billion this year to almost $200 billion in 2011. Now are you really going to tell me that TV sales are going to grow by some 60% in the next couple of years? More importantly, are you going to tell us that the largest screens will account for a majority of that? I don't think so.

And I'm just talking about smart-phones, here. There's also computer screens to include in that: the growth of laptops as compared to desktop computers is even greater than 60%. Screens are shrinking, and you hate that because it goes against everything you've been saying, and in lil't's case, it will eat into his livelihood (I don't know what Wooch does for a living, but he sure is taking this pretty hard as well).

Should I also remind you that those pesky little $200 smart phones get replaced on average every 2 years? Or will that be too painful? And how does that compare to $1500 TVs? My guess is that they get replaced every 10 years or so - totally different market. Now I do see 3D being intriguing on smaller screens because the goggles lend themselves to personal-viewing in the same way that headphones do, but only as a niche - and that's my point there, Wooch.

So if 3D is really geared to the large-TV owning, BR watching, upper-class, movie collectors out there, who just happen to be itching for another expensive upgrade in their homes, then I seriously doubt it's going to be the ubiquitous, universal, every-day technology found in every other home. As I said, it will get there for some, but certainly not in the numbers lil't and Wooch would like us to believe.

The only point I would concede, is the one about audio gear, which I frankly do not understand very well. Of course, lil't has done his best to obscure even that explanation. What's the point of having him explain something when he only confuses everyone more in the process? Unfortunately, I'm sure we're in for more of that.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am not going to spend my time debating the stupidity of a certain poster again. But that certain poster BS just stinks up the room, and really does not make any damn sense at all.

Not only is the gaming part a bit off-topic, here, but people are not going to move their couches each time they want to watch a 3D title. They'll more likely just put up with the less than ideal small size and not get anywhere near the enjoyment they had at the theater.

The people that 3D will appeal to are not idiots like a certain poster. They will already have their viewing displays at the proper distance to enjoy every pixel of their sets, which makes it perfect for 3D. Will the average consumer buy into 3D? Perhaps not, but every product that hits the market is not going to attract everybody. People who settle for substandard viewing habits will probably not enjoy or even buy into 3D. Everything does not have to have mass market appeal to be successful. But then a certain idiotic poster predicted that Blu ray disc would be a niche product - but time has proven him wrong AGAIN!

Cute how Wooch decided to ignore that point entirely. Yes, lil't I'm fully aware that not all films will be 3D, and as usual, you're making my point: less reasons to buy into it; limited use = limited interest in 3D = niche.

This is where a certain poster stupidity rears its ugly head. NIghtidiot, did you know there was going to be a sports channel in 3D?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/...-network_N.htm

Did you know that DirectTV is going to be offering a 3D channel? Maybe you didn't(coming half cocked as usual)

http://www.devicemag.com/2009/12/29/...-hdtv-channel/

Did you know that Sony, IMAX and Discovery are launching a 3D network?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10425553-17.html

So, to school this rather ignorant individual, it is not just movies that will be driving this product. So the "niche" comment based on a movie only application is just plain bunk.

Cute how you both only address the concern for people who wear glasses and dismiss it as insignificant. Let's address that point first, then, since it's so "unimportant" to you both. What I'm reading online is that people who wear glasses don't like wearing these - it's like having to wear those goofy tourist sunglasses over your own glasses.

Obviously a certain poster is once again reading exactly what you want to read.(as usual). There have been millions of folks who wear glasses who have watched Avatar in 3D. Those who get headaches won't buy into it, but the glasses argument is lame(but typical), because you can find shutter glasses that comfortably fit over regular glasses, and even the ones at the theater can fit over your own glasses.

Now this ignorant idiot is saying that people want different things in a theater than they want at home. Well ignorant poster, who says that I cannot talk, or turn around with my glasses on? Did you know ignorant poster that the glasses do not blur any non 3D image, it just makes it darker? Ignorant poster, if you need to move around, remove the glasses, move, and put them back on. Oh wait, I don't even have to do that. I can just move around, talk, eat, use the bathroom with my glasses on, no harm there. If you are so irresponsible that you cannot take care of your glasses, then perhaps you shouldn't have remotes either. Only a idiot(that may be this certain poster) would put their glasses in a place that a dog or kid can get a hold of it. Has anyone every heard of teaching your kids what they can handle, and what they can't, or training your dogs to not chew on things that are not theirs?

Funny, how lil't completely avoids the point and goes off on a tangent about TV channels.

Funny how nightliar does not seem to know how to connect the dots. Nightliar contends that 3D is for Blu ray disc which equals niche, and A)Blu ray is no longer a niche product and B) 3D is not just for Blu ray disc, if is for broadcast as well. Picking and choosing your angle in an attempt to marginalize is a weak point of view to attempt a debate on. Your argument gets weak when it is only based on BR, which by the way is no longer a niche product.

Here is where stupidity is actually validated

Another cute deflection with the whole "it won't affect me, because my player won't need more than a firmware upgrade" line. Hey, you two hypocrites: this isn't just about you. How many times haven't you slammed someone for making just that kind of argument? If it doesn't affect you, that isn't representative of everyone else, right? How many times do I have to paraphrase your own tired criticisms back to you? I have news for you two: we're half-way through my 10 points, and you haven't even made a dent in one of them. So much for making a case.

There is no need to dent what is pointless. There are fifteen million PS3's in the field. In one fell swoop there will be 15 million 3D players. If you don't own a PS3, and you are thinking about getting into Blu ray, you have a choice. You can buy a new non 3D profile 2.0 player from anywhere from $150 to $250 bucks depeding on manufacturer. Or, you can purchase a new Blu ray player that is profile 2.0 AND 3D capable for $200 bucks. More features, about the same price. Even in this economy folks are snapping up $100-200 dollar players like crazy, so wouldn't it make a little sense(more than a certain poster has) to get more value for your money in these hard times by getting a player that cost about the same as the non 3D players but does more than they can?(I know this is too much common sense for a certain ignorant poster.

Initially the televisions will be expensive. But just like HDTV they will come down in price, and to some folks who want 3D now, the price will not make a difference to them. Folks will buy it if they want it, when they want it, nobody is putting a gun to their heads.

So on the one hand lil't says it will require gear that supports new codecs, but it will not require new gear? I didn't say I understood this clearly anyhow, so maybe on of you two geniuses can enlighten us.

I never said any such thing liar. I never said that 3D was EVER going to require a new audio codecs, can you point me to where it was said? If not, admit you lied or cannot see.

This is actually true, whether you want to believe it or not. Last time lil't tried to convince us that just as people want everything bigger (like bigger cars & TVs), they also want things that are more complex.

Where did I say that people want things that are more complex? I do not have to convince anyone here that people want bigger televisions. The sales charts bear this out without me even saying a word. Nobody is buying 720p televisions, and the televisions that are currently moving the fastest are televisions 40" to 58".(it used to be between 27"-32") Nightliar tried to convince us that folks are ditching their new large LCD and Plasma televisions for a 2.5" screen without any proof, and now he is doing it again. Proof please or STFU(I think I have said this to you before).

The theaters are not the right environment for showcasing 3D, and you both know this - you just don't want to admit it. People see the theater as a place where they pay for a service, not as a place that compares in any way with their home systems: different scale, different environment, different gear, and different sound.

What a patently ignorant and stupid statement. You ever heard of pay per view? That happens in the home and it is a service. Where did folks get the idea of getting into Dolby Surround in the home? It came from theater. Where did folks get the idea of getting into 5.1 soundtracks? Hmmmn, oh it came from the theater. Where did folks get the idea of constant height and width screen setups? Could it be THE THEATER? Where did folks get the idea of putting in theatrical seating in their home theaters. I think that was the theater as well. How about projection systems and big screens? I think that was the theater as well. Television calibration? Oh that is from SMPTE standards derived from film exibition IN THE THEATER! Sound system calibration....THE THEATER. The sound is different because most folks do not have horn loaded systems in their home theaters.(duh), but the channel assignments, and the mix is essentially the same.

Yes, that is what I'm reading online - no not from the commercial reviewers, of course, but that's what the comments at the bottom of the webpages pretty much boil down to. Of course, you two only read the official (read: industry-sanctioned) drivel, so you wouldn't know that.

Yeah right, more invisible unverifyable information. The webpages are probably from the computer industry. Again the king of assumption strikes again. Blu ray.com, AVS, HTF, and other forums are not industry sanctioned, they are owned by individuals. Participation in a demo is individual sanctioned, and you get individual responses some positive some, some not. I have found that the Disney demos get far more positive than negative responses, and online from the AV community you get the same vibe. So I smell BS big time here.

Yes, you can dismiss it all you want, but it won't make it go away. The latest report from IDC says that smart phones alone will grow from over $125 billion this year to almost $200 billion in 2011. Now are you really going to tell me that TV sales are going to grow by some 60% in the next couple of years? More importantly, are you going to tell us that the largest screens will account for a majority of that? I don't think so.

The growth of smartphones is not a indication of a certain type of usage on that phone. For you to use this arguement, you will have to provide proof that A) it will be used to replace the television as the primary viewing device and B) stats would show that usage for film and television watching is increasing while watching television at home is decreasing. Since neither is true based on statistics, then your point is mud in clear water. Phones are easily disposable devices, Blu ray players are not. People replace their phones every couple of years(or when the next big gimmick comes out), they do not replace their players that frequently. So red herring meet BS.

More stupidity at work

And I'm just talking about smart-phones, here. There's also computer screens to include in that: the growth of laptops as compared to desktop computers is even greater than 60%. Screens are shrinking, and you hate that because it goes against everything you've been saying, and in lil't's case, it will eat into his livelihood

So, your proof that computer screens are replacing television screens as primary viewing devices? Once again, because the capability is there, does not mean people are using it.

Since movies, commercials, and television shows REQUIRE sound, your stupid comments are just what they are....stupid. Comments without proof is like an empty wagon.

So if 3D is really geared to the large-TV owning, BR watching, upper-class, movie collectors out there, who just happen to be itching for another expensive upgrade in their homes, then I seriously doubt it's going to be the ubiquitous, universal, every-day technology found in every other home. As I said, it will get there for some, but certainly not in the numbers lil't and Wooch would like us to believe.

Sir T and Wooch have posted statistics to support their points, Nightliar supports his with whimsical non facts and gut feelings. Nighidiot seems to love to side step the point that broadcast television will have 3D networks, and ESPN is not exactly for the upper class, or for BR watching movie collectors.

Over and over again we have to be assaulted by stupid ignorant comments from an individual who comes to us half cocked full of mis information or non information. Nobody says that 3D will be cheap in the beginning just like nobody said that Blu ray would be cheap in the beginning. The televisions just like Blu ray players, DVD, players, HDTV, VHS players and every other consumer electronic device will come down in price. There are going to be people like myself who will jump in early, some folks will wait a while, and some folks might never buy a 3D television. That is they way it has been for years with each new bit of technology enters the market.

What I would like to see is some legitimate concerns about the technology, not some wimpy ill conceived drivel coming from a person who makes tying his shoes equal to sending a person to pluto. I don't want to hear from somebody who on one side of his mouth says that 3D is for big screens, and then turns around and says that people will be watching 3D on 2.5" screens. Which is it nightlyingidiot?

[pixelthis]

I am not going to spend my time debating the stupidity of a certain poster again. But that certain poster BS just stinks up the room, and really does not make any damn sense at all.



The people that 3D will appeal to are not idiots like a certain poster. They will already have their viewing displays at the proper distance to enjoy every pixel of their sets, which makes it perfect for 3D. Will the average consumer buy into 3D? Perhaps not, but every product that hits the market is not going to attract everybody. People who settle for substandard viewing habits will probably not enjoy or even buy into 3D. Everything does not have to have mass market appeal to be successful. But then a certain idiotic poster predicted that Blu ray disc would be a niche product - but time has proven him wrong AGAIN!



This is where a certain poster stupidity rears its ugly head. NIghtidiot, did you know there was going to be a sports channel in 3D?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/...-network_N.htm

Did you know that DirectTV is going to be offering a 3D channel? Maybe you didn't(coming half cocked as usual)

http://www.devicemag.com/2009/12/29/...-hdtv-channel/

Did you know that Sony, IMAX and Discovery are launching a 3D network?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10425553-17.html

So, to school this rather ignorant individual, it is not just movies that will be driving this product. So the "niche" comment based on a movie only application is just plain bunk.



Obviously a certain poster is once again reading exactly what you want to read.(as usual). There have been millions of folks who wear glasses who have watched Avatar in 3D. Those who get headaches won't buy into it, but the glasses argument is lame(but typical), because you can find shutter glasses that comfortably fit over regular glasses, and even the ones at the theater can fit over your own glasses.

Now this ignorant idiot is saying that people want different things in a theater than they want at home. Well ignorant poster, who says that I cannot talk, or turn around with my glasses on? Did you know ignorant poster that the glasses do not blur any non 3D image, it just makes it darker? Ignorant poster, if you need to move around, remove the glasses, move, and put them back on. Oh wait, I don't even have to do that. I can just move around, talk, eat, use the bathroom with my glasses on, no harm there. If you are so irresponsible that you cannot take care of your glasses, then perhaps you shouldn't have remotes either. Only a idiot(that may be this certain poster) would put their glasses in a place that a dog or kid can get a hold of it. Has anyone every heard of teaching your kids what they can handle, and what they can't, or training your dogs to not chew on things that are not theirs?



Funny how nightliar does not seem to know how to connect the dots. Nightliar contends that 3D is for Blu ray disc which equals niche, and A)Blu ray is no longer a niche product and B) 3D is not just for Blu ray disc, if is for broadcast as well. Picking and choosing your angle in an attempt to marginalize is a weak point of view to attempt a debate on. Your argument gets weak when it is only based on BR, which by the way is no longer a niche product.

Here is where stupidity is actually validated


There is no need to dent what is pointless. There are fifteen million PS3's in the field. In one fell swoop there will be 15 million 3D players. If you don't own a PS3, and you are thinking about getting into Blu ray, you have a choice. You can buy a new non 3D profile 2.0 player from anywhere from $150 to $250 bucks depeding on manufacturer. Or, you can purchase a new Blu ray player that is profile 2.0 AND 3D capable for $200 bucks. More features, about the same price. Even in this economy folks are snapping up $100-200 dollar players like crazy, so wouldn't it make a little sense(more than a certain poster has) to get more value for your money in these hard times by getting a player that cost about the same as the non 3D players but does more than they can?(I know this is too much common sense for a certain ignorant poster.

Initially the televisions will be expensive. But just like HDTV they will come down in price, and to some folks who want 3D now, the price will not make a difference to them. Folks will buy it if they want it, when they want it, nobody is putting a gun to their heads.



I never said any such thing liar. I never said that 3D was EVER going to require a new audio codecs, can you point me to where it was said? If not, admit you lied or cannot see.



Where did I say that people want things that are more complex? I do not have to convince anyone here that people want bigger televisions. The sales charts bear this out without me even saying a word. Nobody is buying 720p televisions, and the televisions that are currently moving the fastest are televisions 40" to 58".(it used to be between 27"-32") Nightliar tried to convince us that folks are ditching their new large LCD and Plasma televisions for a 2.5" screen without any proof, and now he is doing it again. Proof please or STFU(I think I have said this to you before).



What a patently ignorant and stupid statement. You ever heard of pay per view? That happens in the home and it is a service. Where did folks get the idea of getting into Dolby Surround in the home? It came from theater. Where did folks get the idea of getting into 5.1 soundtracks? Hmmmn, oh it came from the theater. Where did folks get the idea of constant height and width screen setups? Could it be THE THEATER? Where did folks get the idea of putting in theatrical seating in their home theaters. I think that was the theater as well. How about projection systems and big screens? I think that was the theater as well. Television calibration? Oh that is from SMPTE standards derived from film exibition IN THE THEATER! Sound system calibration....THE THEATER. The sound is different because most folks do not have horn loaded systems in their home theaters.(duh), but the channel assignments, and the mix is essentially the same.



Yeah right, more invisible unverifyable information. The webpages are probably from the computer industry. Again the king of assumption strikes again. Blu ray.com, AVS, HTF, and other forums are not industry sanctioned, they are owned by individuals. Participation in a demo is individual sanctioned, and you get individual responses some positive some, some not. I have found that the Disney demos get far more positive than negative responses, and online from the AV community you get the same vibe. So I smell BS big time here.



The growth of smartphones is not a indication of a certain type of usage on that phone. For you to use this arguement, you will have to provide proof that A) it will be used to replace the television as the primary viewing device and B) stats would show that usage for film and television watching is increasing while watching television at home is decreasing. Since neither is true based on statistics, then your point is mud in clear water. Phones are easily disposable devices, Blu ray players are not. People replace their phones every couple of years(or when the next big gimmick comes out), they do not replace their players that frequently. So red herring meet BS.

More stupidity at work



So, your proof that computer screens are replacing television screens as primary viewing devices? Once again, because the capability is there, does not mean people are using it.

Since movies, commercials, and television shows REQUIRE sound, your stupid comments are just what they are....stupid. Comments without proof is like an empty wagon.



Sir T and Wooch have posted statistics to support their points, Nightliar supports his with whimsical non facts and gut feelings. Nighidiot seems to love to side step the point that broadcast television will have 3D networks, and ESPN is not exactly for the upper class, or for BR watching movie collectors.

Over and over again we have to be assaulted by stupid ignorant comments from an individual who comes to us half cocked full of mis information or non information. Nobody says that 3D will be cheap in the beginning just like nobody said that Blu ray would be cheap in the beginning. The televisions just like Blu ray players, DVD, players, HDTV, VHS players and every other consumer electronic device will come down in price. There are going to be people like myself who will jump in early, some folks will wait a while, and some folks might never buy a 3D television. That is they way it has been for years with each new bit of technology enters the market.

What I would like to see is some legitimate concerns about the technology, not some wimpy ill conceived drivel coming from a person who makes tying his shoes equal to sending a person to pluto. I don't want to hear from somebody who on one side of his mouth says that 3D is for big screens, and then turns around and says that people will be watching 3D on 2.5" screens. Which is it nightlyingidiot?

In other words this poster works for a company that is pushing 3D, therefore
anybody against 3D chapter god knows how many is an idiot.
JUST FOR not going along with the fantasies of Sony, et al?
Even in good times this would be a hard sell.
Nobody is going to be rushing out to get these.
Govt cheese maybe.
BUT 3D is mainly going to devolve into a last ditch effort to save the movie theater.
It may find a niche there.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

In other words this poster works for a company that is pushing 3D, therefore
anybody against 3D chapter god knows how many is an idiot.
JUST FOR not going along with the fantasies of Sony, et al?
Even in good times this would be a hard sell.
Nobody is going to be rushing out to get these.
Govt cheese maybe.
BUT 3D is mainly going to devolve into a last ditch effort to save the movie theater.
It may find a niche there.

Once again stupid, I don't work for Sony. I have said time and time again which studio I work for, are you too stupid to figure this out by now? I am not pushing anything, you can get into 3D or not as far as I am concerned, but I am not going to let misinformation and uneducated gut feeling dominate the conversation. Facts are better than guts, and knowledge is better than stupidity. Maybe it is time you get a little knowledge to counter the stupidity.