Top
480°

3D Blu-Ray's on PS3 with limitations too

In October, an Update will appear for the PS3, which allows to play 3D Blu-Rays on the Console. But only with limitations.

Read Full Story >>
translate.google.de
The story is too old to be commented.
Godmars2903021d ago

So, what's the difference between a limitation because of technical issues, and one based on bureaucratic specs? I don't get it.

Genesis53021d ago

Makes absolutely no sense to me either.

shoddy3021d ago

As long as the 3d movies is 1080p I don't see a problem.

3021d ago
gcolley3021d ago

@ bringitson. so a limitation, however minor, should not be reported to the public because idiotic fanboys like you thing it is just sony bashing.

grow a brain

jack_burt0n3021d ago

spec are defined by the leading 3d bluray player which = PS3 so discs will literally be designed around the ps3.

Fishy Fingers3021d ago

Hopefully someone posts an alt link I can understand. I dont quite get what this means. Unless someone can explain it?

callahan093021d ago

Agreed, I have no idea what this lame translation is trying to tell me.

TheGrimReaper3021d ago

There won't be java based 3D menus on PS3. Therefore HDMV (aka BDMV) has to be used. BDs support 2 different interface layers: JAVA & HDMV

MisterAV3021d ago (Edited 3021d ago )

Strange, PS3 lacks power? Maybe they implement it in the future..

kneon3021d ago

I don't think it has anything to do with power, I think it's because the bd-j specification doesn't include any of the Java 3D APIs as far as I can recall. That will probably come in a future spec update.

But this web page is nearly gibberish so I'm only guessing at what they are trying to say.

i_am_interested3021d ago (Edited 3021d ago )

NOWHERE in this poorly translated information does it say that there WONT be 3d java menus available while playing 3d blu-rays on ps3

what this poor translation does say is that hdmv menus are required for 3d playback on ps3,

that could mean that at the very least they have to be in there, nothing to my knowledge says that you cant have both a bd-j menu and a hdmv menu on the same disc

TheGrimReaper3021d ago (Edited 3021d ago )

I read it in german, so I haven't mentioned anything from the translated version. I thought I'd let you know what the original article said but if it isn't appreciated just keep reading the rubbish translation :)

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3021d ago
ULTIMATE_REVENGE3021d ago

Seriously who gives a dam about 3D. Why don't Sony and many other company's spend more time in trying to bring 4k HDTV's to the market.

I've notice that 4k resolution has a natural 3D or 'in your face' look to it, the objects on a 4k TV's look like they're right in front of you whereas 3D has a more numb effect compared to 4K.

I'd prefer super high res images over 3D any day.

rdgneoz33021d ago (Edited 3021d ago )

So, you don't care about 3D but you care about 4k HDTVs, and you want Sony and other companies to listen to you and bring them to the market. But if other people want 3D and don't care about 4k HDTVs, then they don't matter?

Lf_sIcKmAn3021d ago

Implementing 4k on tvs right now would be pointless... new bluray discs for the megasized files... plus new tvs... (with costs around 10.000) plus new players... not so smart... 3d however requires less expense... common company thinking... my guess is 4k will be skipped, and we will go right thru something like 8k that is basically like looking through a window...

Hideo_Kojima3020d ago

8K 3D with head tracking would be like looking through a window...

no matter how much you increase the resolution it will always seem flat (like a painting) unless you have 3D support and head tracking to move the image around as you move.

thor3021d ago

Why don't they focus on 60fps for films instead?

Seriously, it pisses me off. For all of the video freaks going on and on about higher and higher resolutions, resolutions that you can't even see unless you have a massive television, there is NO talk about upping the framerate. Why is that?

Every time I see a slow panning shot it looks AWFUL because of the crappy 24fps films are still recorded at. Crappy 24fps would still look crappy at 8k resolution.

A framerate upgrade would require far less upgrading of equipment. Existing blu-ray players may be able to handle it, current TVs can certainly handle it, and if a blu-ray disk can store 2 images (1 for each eye) for 3D, it will have no problem storing the extra data for intermediate frames (which is easily compressed).

nickjkl3021d ago

because 60 fps looks shitty in a movie format it looks like some guy recorded it with a camera in his back yard record it at 24 frames and it looks much better

its not the same as playing a game

Thecraft19893021d ago (Edited 3021d ago )

thor You understand what your talking about.

gamingdroid3021d ago (Edited 3021d ago )

I think Thor is talking about the 2:3 pull down that happens with movies shown at 30 fps. I don't understand why they stick with the 24fps for filming movies either.

It makes the movie look unsmooth (judder) unecessary.

@nickjkl

Explain to me why a movie filmed at 24 fps would be better than 30fps?

Pillage053021d ago

past 24fps, film starts to look...un-natural.

Many people in the world would not be able to even tell what was happening on screen. In the old days of film you'll notice that the shots are even held way longer because humans weren't able to take in what was happening if they used quick cuts. Obviously today things are different where our younger generation grew up on tv and are able to recognize the images on a screen much much faster. something like 30fps would probably be doable today for atleast the younger people. be even some video games slow down frame rates on cutscenes where a lot is going on. If films were at 60fps...most would pretty much just interpret any action on screen as a blurry mess.

There are tv's out there (notably the new 3d tvs) that can sort of force any video/tv signal into higher framerates (like 120). I don't know how it works exactly but it like averages frames together to create intermediate frames. It actually looks great for animated movies but real life images start to look like a video game or that they were computer generated.

There is a reason that films are at 24fps though...it's not technology holding it back.

gamingdroid3021d ago

"past 24fps, film starts to look...un-natural."

Do you have any source for that? That doesn't make any sense to me, because real life movement is infinte frames. The higher the frame rate, the smoother the motion. Why would anyone have issues viewing something smoother. If anything a slower frame rate would make it look choppier and harder to view and interpet.

I'm not questioning you, just trying to understand.

Hideo_Kojima3020d ago

I never knew why movies were recorded at 24p but a quick search showed me this.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

interesting video but you will need to download it and play it on your PC to get the full 60fps...

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3020d ago
shoddy3021d ago

Oled is the tv of the future and it available now.

That what I though you too broke. Talk is cheap.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3020d ago
HeavenlySnipes3021d ago

Both these pictures depict my reactions after reading this article

i_am_interested3021d ago

anyone, feel free to explain what the hell this means and what the hell hdmv menus are versus that other thing theyre talking about

Show all comments (44)
The story is too old to be commented.