3D Support

[Bacon2002]

Hi,

I have recently upgraded to a 3D TV and Blu Ray setup and I was wondering what plans (if any) SageTV has to implement 3D support into the software and the current or future hardware.

As I understand it Blu Ray disks are in one format and TV transmitions are often in another (side by side or similar) one assumes that SageTV would need a way of recognising these formats. I have already recorded 3D shows and they play back fine in SageTV but it requires manually setting the TV to Side by Side and the result is that the SageTV UI is not displayed correctly but other than that it works and the effects are very good.

SageTV would need to be able to switch the TV to the correct format and I expect this is done via HDMI 1.4 although I am not sure.

Whilst it seems lots of people are anti 3D I do really like it and it appears inevitable that it will form part of future developments and main stream viewing habbits so it is highly likely that SageTV already have plans of some sort.

Does anyone know where I could find some information on SageTV's plans or timescales for some sort of offical support.

Many thanks,

David

[Tomahawk51]

Thanks for posting your experience. I'm running to the hardware store in a minute to buy bolts to finish mounting my new 55" 3d HDTV. I have not used 3d on it yet, but appreciate that SageTV should work as you describe.

I'm also interested in longer term notions. For example, is it likely software updates to the HD300 would work...or is it more likely that a hardware upgrade is needed?

[jaminben]

Whilst there has been no offical word from Sage regarding 3D support I do remember reading that the HD300 hardware can support 3D video files although Sage hasn't done anything with it yet or perhaps it was the hardware vendor that hasn't enabled it, either way it may just need a firmware update..... maybe I read it wrong, I can't remember.

Anyway, what I did once was to convert a 3D film to an .mkv file, start playback of the .mkv via the extender and then manually change my TV over to side by side..... works ok but its alot of hassle.

Here's what I used.....

[sentinal]

Has there been any discussion about support for 3d content in SageTV v7? I'm trying to use Sage as my only media center software but without 3d support I'm using media center which defeats the purpose.

Any ideas?
Thanks.

* merged *

[Fuzzy]

Personally, I just launch ArcSoft TMT3 if I want to watch in 3D. (also works if I want to use full menu's/special features). If I just want to watch in 2D, and just the Main movie, I play it within sage.

[sentinal]

This is disappointing to me. I purchased SageTV to be the single source of media for my house. While it was known at the time 3D wasn't supported, it seems like it won't be either and now regretting my purchase.

So now it seems we're pooched because even though Microsoft's media center is a much better application (IMHO), the only real extender is an xbox which doesn't support resuming DVD playback. So is the notion of a single solution for all media a pipe dream? I don't see why it should be, but sure seems that way.

[gplasky]

Originally Posted by sentinal

This is disappointing to me. I purchased SageTV to be the single source of media for my house. While it was known at the time 3D wasn't supported, it seems like it won't be either and now regretting my purchase.

So now it seems we're pooched because even though Microsoft's media center is a much better application (IMHO), the only real extender is an xbox which doesn't support resuming DVD playback. So is the notion of a single solution for all media a pipe dream? I don't see why it should be, but sure seems that way.

You'll probably never hear 3D being announced. They don't pre-announce features anymore. But that doesn't mean it might not show up in a future beta. You just never know.

And AFAIK the Xbox doesn't support streaming of ripped DVDs. So if you transcode the DVD to another format that is why it doesn't resume.

And other than a specific video player like Arcsoft or Cyberlink PowerDVD I don't think any single media center-type software has announced support for 3D.

Gerry

[jaminben]

Originally Posted by sentinal

This is disappointing to me. I purchased SageTV to be the single source of media for my house. While it was known at the time 3D wasn't supported, it seems like it won't be either and now regretting my purchase.

I feel your pain...... I had the same with my 56k modem, I knew at the time that it had speeds of 56kbps but now it wont work with my ADSL 10mb broadband.......






Obviously I'm being sarcastic.

[jptheripper]

umm really? come on. 3D isnt even mainstream yet. Not only that, but Apple (shudder, disturbance in the force) was recently awarded a patent for a 3d projector that doesnt require any glasses.

So, as with all technology, there is a chance 3d (with glasses) will, like the last 2 or 3 times they have tried, fail miserably.

At least give sagetv the chance to see if the market bares the technology as worthwhile (imo, 3d has not earned that yet) before you regret purchasing (again imo) the best option out there by FAR.

[panteragstk]

I understand the importance of 3d to some people, but being upset about lack of native 3d support is just like being upset that it won't play HD-DVD's or laser discs out of the box. Just because 3d is popular now doesn't mean it will be in 6mo. It has failed 3 times before and I don't see that changing. That and the fact that there aren't even 10 3d blu rays last time I checked.

[Fuzzy]

After watching Avatar in 3D at home on my 61" last night, I can say this time around, 3D's got a LOT greater chance.

[eric3a]

I'm all new to this 3D thing, but I thought if you encoded a movie in 3D SBS (side by side) then any media player would work and the TV would do all the work?

I get headaches when watching 3D stuff, so for me it's not much more than an experiment.

Eric

[Fuzzy]

Yes, that is the case. Side-by-side encoding should work fine with any 'newer' 3D tv. With the 'older' DLP 3D tv's, which require a checkerboard pattern, this won't work, and it has to be done at the rendering level.

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

After watching Avatar in 3D at home on my 61" last night, I can say this time around, 3D's got a LOT greater chance.

I'll agree that it has a greater chance, but what will make sure that it stays around will be when you don't need the glasses any more.

[Fuzzy]

The glasses are a realistic expectation for at least the next decade. The only way a glassessless system would work would be with a relatively limited viewing location, not suitable to in-home use (works for computer monitors, but that's about it). The glasses REALLY aren't that much of an inconvenience. i mean, it's not really for everyday casual viewing, just the occasional 'movie night' situation.

[stanger89]

The question is, is an "occasional 'movie night'" solution enough for it to not die again.

[Fuzzy]

well, in my case, 3D only cost me an extra 200 bucks, since any high end DLP has it built in already - that IS worth it for me. Now, is it worth an extra $2000 for whatever glassessless system comes out in the next 5 years, that would be limited to maybe 2 seats? I don't think so.

The major difference between this foray into 3D and the previous couple, is the content. Aside from the 3D technique, which is really starting to be refined, the content itself is so much more suitable to it. The horror flicks of the 40's would never be truly emersive, not matter how good the 3D was... that's not the case now.

Also realize that about 40% of trailers I've seen recently are for movies that will be available in 3D.

In the past, it was alwas about the gimmick. that is, of course, the case with SOME of the current content, but certainly, there are some VERY successful flicks being shown that avoid all the gimmicky stuff, and try to create a comfortable, immersive, and still entertaining experience (Avatar, and Tron being prime examples of doing 3D right).

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

well, in my case, 3D only cost me an extra 200 bucks, since any high end DLP has it built in already - that IS worth it for me.

Be careful there, I assume you mean "high end" rear projection, because almost no DLP front projectors (or front projectors in general) support 3D. I know my Planar doesn't. In the FP world, you've actually got to take a few steps down from HT projectors into like educational/business/simulation models (or way, way higher into stuff like DPI/Sim2).

Now, is it worth an extra $2000 for whatever glassessless system comes out in the next 5 years, that would be limited to maybe 2 seats? I don't think so.

From what I've seen in the FP world, if you wanted glasses for 4-5 people it would be on the order of $1000 or more, assuming active glasses. If you wanted passive glasses those would be cheaper, but you'd probably be talking $1000+ for a silver screen.

Also realize that about 40% of trailers I've seen recently are for movies that will be available in 3D.

Unfortunately I think you can count on one hand those that were actually shot in 3D (not counting CG movies of course). Unfortunately most "3D" movies are post converted, it's getting ridiculous, I mean Star Wars 3D, seriously?

In the past, it was alwas about the gimmick. that is, of course, the case with SOME of the current content, but certainly, there are some VERY successful flicks being shown that avoid all the gimmicky stuff, and try to create a comfortable, immersive, and still entertaining experience (Avatar, and Tron being prime examples of doing 3D right).

Personally Avatar didn't do anything for me 3D wise. It was either gimmicky or too subtle to really be noticeable. The only scenes that didn't "stick out" in a gimmicky way were the ones that didn't look 3D.

I might go see Tron in 3D out of sort of morbid curiosity, but I'm not expecting much.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Be careful there, I assume you mean "high end" rear projection, because almost no DLP front projectors (or front projectors in general) support 3D. I know my Planar doesn't. In the FP world, you've actually got to take a few steps down from HT projectors into like educational/business/simulation models (or way, way higher into stuff like DPI/Sim2).

With all due respect, the home FP world has absolutely nothing to do with the mainstream acceptance of a technology. You're talking about a user base not much bigger than sagetv's. As for FP 3D configs, I'm really not sure what is available, FP's got no interest from me... but if they use a standard TI wobulating 1080 DLP setup, then it would have cost the manufacturer about $10 extra to add the 3D sync port to the box.

Originally Posted by stanger89

From what I've seen in the FP world, if you wanted glasses for 4-5 people it would be on the order of $1000 or more, assuming active glasses. If you wanted passive glasses those would be cheaper, but you'd probably be talking $1000+ for a silver screen.

The only reason those glasses cost so much is because they are 'trendy', and they are trying to make them 'look cool'. I use cheap, ugly, LCD shutter glasses from the i-glasses store , You can get them for $60 a piece. If you're watching a movie, the room should be pretty dark, so who cares what they look like?

Originally Posted by stanger89

Unfortunately I think you can count on one hand those that were actually shot in 3D (not counting CG movies of course). Unfortunately most "3D" movies are post converted, it's getting ridiculous, I mean Star Wars 3D, seriously?

Yeah, there are a lot of upconverts.. but since there are very few movies that AREN'T CG anymore, the trend towards more 3D is just going to increase.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Personally Avatar didn't do anything for me 3D wise. It was either gimmicky or too subtle to really be noticeable. The only scenes that didn't "stick out" in a gimmicky way were the ones that didn't look 3D.

I might go see Tron in 3D out of sort of morbid curiosity, but I'm not expecting much.

FWIW, Tron's 3D was very suttle, in fact some scenes were truly 2D. It's used mostly as a camera effect, much like lighting, or camera angles, to help tell a story, and depict the strange world.. it's actually VERY good at doing so. if 3D is done right, you shouldn't 'notice' it. It should be there just to allow the director to use more visual cues to tell the story.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

With all due respect, the home FP world has absolutely nothing to do with the mainstream acceptance of a technology. You're talking about a user base not much bigger than sagetv's. As for FP 3D configs, I'm really not sure what is available, FP's got no interest from me... but if they use a standard TI wobulating 1080 DLP setup, then it would have cost the manufacturer about $10 extra to add the 3D sync port to the box.

Actually they don't, the better ones use full 1920x1080, 0.95" DMDs

The only reason those glasses cost so much is because they are 'trendy', and they are trying to make them 'look cool'.

Not really, I was thinking of ones like JVCs which are $200+ a piece. The glasses you linked only work with Samsung DLPs (according to the site). Samsung's LCD TV glasses look to be about $150, as are Sony's. The XpanD universals are a bit over $100.

Yeah, there are a lot of upconverts.. but since there are very few movies that AREN'T CG anymore, the trend towards more 3D is just going to increase.

I mean animated (Toy Story etc), not live action movies with CGI effects. The fact remains most 3D live action movies so far are not shot in 3D they are converted to 3D in post production.

FWIW, Tron's 3D was very suttle, in fact some scenes were truly 2D. It's used mostly as a camera effect, much like lighting, or camera angles, to help tell a story, and depict the strange world.. it's actually VERY good at doing so. if 3D is done right, you shouldn't 'notice' it.

Then frankly, what's the point? Wouldn't that be like using color film to shoot black and white?