I was about to buy a new projector (panny 4000) and I decided to wait because next years model is compatable with the 3d technology that's coming. I just read that recievers and Pre/pro's are going to have to be compatable with HDMI 1.4, or 1.3 that can be upgraded like the ps3. I doubt the 997 will be compatable with this technology. Then again, by the time it actually comes out, there will probably be wireless HD/Audio systems and the 997 will look like an antique. I'm going to start seriously looking at other options for the first time.

It's still hard to tell what the requirements are for 3D, but there is the potential for all of the relatively new HDMI v1.3 receivers and processors to have a problem passing HD3D video signals. For some discussion of the current state of affairs regarding 3D standards (or the lack thereof), you might check out this article. It's an interesting read.

One likely solution (which is apparently going to be implemented on at least one upcoming Blu-ray 3D player, I think from Panasonic) is to have two HDMI outputs on the player. One would go directly to the HDMI v1.4 display and the other would go to an HDMI v1.3 receiver or processor. This avoids the problem.

I could interject another rant about HDMI here, but I will refrain...

HDMI upgrades and 3D HDTV reek of planned obsolescence for those HDTVs, Pre/Pros and Receivers we all went out and splurged on in the last couple of years. Same with Selective Output control. I guarantee you that you'll see that popping up in content just as soon as HDTV sales start to drop off, and all of the early adopters with component-only sets are forced to toss an otherwise good HDTV. What happened to the promise of ongoing firmware support in the digital age?

And while I'm ranting, what's with 3D all of a sudden? Am I seriously expected to believe that these guys are going to transform the way I watch HD when half of the BDs I've seen look as if they're upscaled from the DVD versions? 3D is effective when the screen takes up 110 degrees of your view in the theater, and everything is big and impressive and makes you duck when it comes flying at you. Even with the big TVs in homes now, you'd have to sit right in front of it to get the same impact from the effect. And now I have to wear glasses to watch TV? I'd sooner wear a tinfoil hat, and mind you I'm starting to think that's a good idea.

Some of this is simply my personal preference, of course, but I absolutely don't care about 3D. Maybe when they get displays that will provide 3D without the use of glasses and there is content that makes good use of that capability, I will care about it. All of the current fuss and hype just irritates me. I don't want to have my entire video signal path rendered "obsolete" because HDMI had to create a new version and the TV makers and Hollywood decided to push 3D onto consumers so they can see us new TV's (especially when the digital changeover just happened less than a year ago).

I agree wholeheartedly!! Anyone jumping on 3D at this point is going to be throwing big $$$ away for a barely thought out technology. We should invent a BS-ometer. Someone will make a device which splits out the 3D signal from the audio and allow the 3D signal to go to the display while the audio goes to the pre-pro. They will make a killing.

Electronics manufactures and movie studios can proclaim 3D the next thing but in terms of sales DVD is still king with BluRay gaining but still way back. This recent press release from The Digital Entertainment Group includes a chart that tracks sales of home media over the years and it looks like we still live in a 480i world. BluRay sales are increasing but the market transformation to BluRay still has a ways to go. I strongly doubt folks moving from standard def will leap over 1080p and BluRay for 3D capable equipment. This says nothing of how much 3D content will be available and whether its quality will sway even early adopters. As for me I don't see the draw for 3D. I enjoyed how Avatar looked in 3D for example but I wouldn't spend thousands of dollars to buy equipment to watch the few 3D titles at home. I suspect the 997 and even the 990 with a BluRay player will be safe for a while. So, I'm not going to worry about 3D and instead concentrate my efforts on increasing BluRay's market share!

Yeah, the standards definitely need some clarification still - which makes me nervous about actually investing in hardware. It will also be curious to see what these first 3D displays and players cost. That's something that didn't really get discussed at CES last weekend.

Or players will provide two HDMI outputs so you can send audio one place and video another. That assumes you actually want to invest in both a player and a TV that support 3D, of course...

Avfan,

You took the words right out of my mouth. Strangely, this "push" towards 3d seems to be based on one movie, Avatar. What is interesting ( at least to me ) is that the seemingly "sudden" collaboration among hardware and media that resulted in a standard for 3d. Not to sound gloomy but this has the smell of desperation rather than innovation to spur lackluster sales.

Just my 0.05 worth.

You'll need a new TV - how many people have bought new TV for HD in the last couple years?

Broadcast 3D will not be in HD. Way too much bandwidth needed. Only BD movies in 3D will be HD.

If you want to have the guys over to watch the Superbowl in 3D you'll need to spring for lots of glasses at $50-$75 bucks a piece.

Not only will you need a new TV but a new media player as well because your current BD player will not handle the new 3D format.

And just about the time everyone has 3D with the glasses the manufacturers will come out with 3D that does not require glasses so the whole thing starts again.

Check here:

Link 1

Link 2

I'm beginning to think this whole thing is a rip-off to keep us buying equipment.

If I wanted 3D drama in my own home I would've stayed married.

mzpro who can do just fine in flat land.

Sure seems that way from where I sit...

Thanks for the links Mzpro5. I thought the quote that in the near future you won't be able to buy a TV without 3D capability rather arrogant. Nobody knows how much that will add to the price and the reaction of the buying public.

There may be a dim glimmer of a market. I'm not a gamer but I have seen some of the games on an xBox 360 and I bet 3D would be very popular (and you don't need too many glasses) with those who play. But again you'd have to sit very close to a standard size screen to get an immersive experience. However, it would be much easier using a projector. Has anyone seen any discussion of 3D projectors? Regardless, this is such a narrow segment I can't imagine it would drive a broad change.

I agree - this is going to add cost, potentially a lot of cost. Plenty of folks aren't going to want to pay that premium if they can avoid it.

We've got them in movie theaters already. It's feasible. There were some 3D projectors mentioned at CES, I believe, but one complaint I've read from industry blogs is that the presence of glasses between you and the screen reduces the image brightness for any 3D display. Projectors already fight for every lumen of light output they can get. Not an ideal combination.

Upgrade fatigue. Just the buzzword I was reaching for but failed to enunciate. Absolutely true. As expected, the industry is anxious and tittering about anything that might keep the promise of the ultra-profitable HDTV alive. If it weren't for LED local dimming, energy star qualifiers and 1.2 inch deep sets, the prospect of selling a $3000 TV would be a distant memory by now. Seems like they don't want to face up to the glory days being behind them.



Of course, this means that you'd need an all-new game console as well. I'm fatigued just thinking about it...

Technology marches on!! SACD/DVD-A/S-video/VHS/Betamax/DAT/Edsel/Pinto/Vega

I imagine wearing the 3D glasses would ruin the usual joking and discussions that occur at a super bowl party we have every year.

I agree with the consensus here that it will probably be awhile (if ever) before 3-D is anything more than a novelty for in-home entertainment. It certainly wouldn't stop me in the least from buying a pre-pro today.

First, there's always external HDMI switchers (I'm using one now). Second, there's always going to be something new on the horizon. If you must be bleeding edge, then plan to upgrade your equipment annually. Third, if the latest in connectivity options is a major concern, a receiver from a major manufacturer is usually your best bet. They typically get to market faster than pre-pro's and have shorter life cycles. Fourth, no way I'm wearing those dorky looking glasses.

Another article questioning all the 3D buzz.

Well written succinct and to the point

Link

I recently went to my local Audio Video store and was blown away with some pretty impressive equipment. Wilson Audio, Runco,MacIntosh to name a few. The awe inspiring Home theater room that I was in sitting on a Home Theater $3000.00 recliner with a lot of impressive acoustic material surrounding me that could pass for artwork made the room very easy on the eyes.
The demo I was viewing was Terminator Salvation which if your a Terminator fan was a decent movie and gives your subs a good workout. I think that Christian Bale does a good job on the part of playing John Connor.
Sorry I digressed!
The point is that when I came home that day and watch the same movie in my Home Theater I was just as impressed.
I thought about how blessed I am to be fortunate enough to have a dedicated Home Theater room.
I am tired of trying to keep up the idea of getting a better this or that.
I have been thinking of the 997 for some time and I am realizing that what I have 990/7700 is already the Cream' de La Crem'.

Avatar 3D iMax is awesome. Congratulations to James Cameron, Disney if anyone has been to Orlando or Anaheim has some powerful 3D. Very entertaining and cool for sure.
So we just enter the Blu-Ray era, now it's the 3D era and do not forget LED, both in TV's and projectors.
It never ends.

I promised myself that I will not buy another piece of equipment just to update. You never can update. By the time you set-up that new pre-pro, TV, or 9.1 speaker system the electronic industry pulls another rabbit out of the hat.

So I am being content,,,very content. Unless something brakes where it is not financially feasible to repair I am not replacing it for the sake of updating.
The 997 would have to do a lot for me to change what I already feel is a damn good system.
Again my opinion.
I love Outlaw and will continue to buy their products but only when I have too.

Frank

Frank raises a great point. A system is about more than having the latest gadget or most expensive toys. A system is about the sum of its parts working together to give us some enjoyment and entertainment.

Last fall, I had a chance to sit at a guy's house and hear a system built around Proceed electronics driving upper-tier B&W speakers. Some of it was older tech, but it was very high-end stuff. His processor and amp alone probably cost more than my entire system, and I suspect that his speakers and the two subs may have come close to doing the same. Did I leave feeling bad about my system? Nope. I left feeling proud of my system. A partnership of more affordable products, integrated with careful thought into our den, sounded better than the amalgam of much more expensive gear that was awkwardly grouped together in his theater/office. Sure, I am pretty certain that I could have taken his stuff and set it up in such a way that it would have performed much better (although I'd have swapped the PS3 out for a BDP-83), but it is a worthwhile reminder that it's good to sometimes stop, give yourself credit for assembling the system you have in front of you, and just enjoy the music/movies.

While I agree with the general ideas about how we really don't need 3D and how fundamentally impractical home 3D would be while glasses are still needed, the recent CES coverage suggested strongly that 3D is coming whether we want it or not.

Apparently (and I don't know enough to have an independent opinion) it's actually pretty easy to get 240hz displays to do any kind of 3D that is likely to become popular. So a company could get behind one 3D technology and start putting it on its higher-end displays even without content being available (can you see the decals "3D ready" stuck on every bezel?). If that happens, there will be an incentive for "3D capable Blu-Ray" players to be built, and finally, for more 3D content to be produced, including games. That sounds like at least a plausible, if not entirely likely, scenario. (Many unanswered questions, of course, but you have to start somewhere.)

Jeash, you guys are funny dissing on the idea of 3D TV at home as worthless, or even worse than worthless. I think that's like someone 50 years ago complaining about color TV being a waste of money and a scam by companies to sell new TVs when everyone already had a perfectly good 20" black and white TV.

3D TV will eventually be a big deal. There are a few technology barriers to it taking over the world but they are not nearly so difficult as the barriers the industry had to overcome to build large flat panel TVs. Remember how painful that was? It took 20 years to crawl our way from terrible streaky monochrome 9" LCDs to the beautiful color 65" LCDs we can buy at Costco for ~$3K today. It's fairly trivial to build a 3D TV that works well with glasses. These sets will not cost more to build once they are in production. All they are doing is interspersing two video streams (right eye, left eye), synchronized with the filters in the glasses. So they needed double the refresh rate, but the TVs are already at 240 Hz so that isn't a problem. And they need double the data input bandwidth which requires a new version of HDMI but is well within the capability of current electronics tech. And they need the sync xmitter to tell the glasses when to flip the filters. No big deal, no real extra manufacturing cost. Yes, the manufacturers will charge an extra premium for a few years to include the feature, but that won't last long.

But people are not going to want to wear annoying glasses except when they are seriously focused on watching a movie or playing video games. The real key tech that needs more work are the screens that through some magic use a slotted lensing system on the front of the screen to produce 3D without glasses. It sounds like that tech is feasible, and if it could be produced, I believe it will eventually make 3D screens a part of our lives everywhere (computers, TVs, phones, everything).

I suspect eventually 2D filmed movies will be "3Dized" just like black and white movies are routinely "colorized". Just as computers enabled rapid, efficient colorization, the same approach could be used to assign depth to various objects on the film and computer generate the left/right eye video streams.

Until then, new movies will increasingly be filmed in 3D HD. And games will adopt 3D immediately since the gameplay will be dramatically more compelling.

This is good technology! And the companies that bring it to us deserve to be rewarded.

Another article on 3D adoption. they predict it will catch on much slower than HDTV did.

LINK

I have never seen a 3D movie that made me feel like, ooh got have 3D. Now I haven't seen Avatar and maybe I'm the only one, even my 80 year old father has seen it. However, I'm not opposed to having it built into the next TV. Fat chance I'll put on those glasses on as they're annoying (I don't even like to wear sunglasses), but I imagine they'll come out with a better solution then those cardboard glasses.

That would make sense if 50 years ago they were trying to sell color TVs without any actual color TV broadcasts and making all buyers have to wear special glasses to see the color when it did finally become available. Eventually, all content was broadcast in color, but there's not a chance of 3D becoming ubiquitous in the foreseeable future - most broadcasters only recently made the capital improvements for HD, and won't be likely to plunk down more anytime soon.


See above, and also, 3D broadcasts can not be provided in HD by current ATSC standards. Hard to convince people to buy into 3D for TV when it's a step below HD resolution. You might convince the enthusiasts who already have BD players, but that's still a small market in the world of HD.



That's all conjecture, as no one has developed marketable tech at this point. The reality is that 3D is being offered as a "wear your glasses" experience right now. As soon as anyone finds out they have to buy extra glasses @ $50-$100/ea, it's going to be a tough sell, especially if they won't necessarily work on another 3D TV. And if you like to host Super Bowl, we're talking the cost of another TV just to have your friends watch.


We may disagree on this, but the public in general will decide that with their wallets. Over the years, the general enthusiasm for new technologies in this forum (ie SACD and DVD-Audio, HD-DVD and Bluray, multiroom audio, etc) has been typically high, so you'd presume that a lack of enthusiasm here might be an indicator that this tech is going to need some work if it's going to make it.

Obviously Color TV and all of the subsequent improvements was an effort (scam?) to sell new equipment.
All of these enhancements have improved picture quality, though I'm not sure how much they have improved the TV viewing experience.
Particulary in dramatic presentations, the content of the production is (IMHO) the key factor. This is why live theater has remained popular even without exotic special effects and realistic sets. When you are emersed in the drama, you accept the suggestion a prop . It's realism doesn't mater.
Unfortunately the content of most TV programing hasn't improved and has by far in large deteriorated , even movies are increasingly featuring special effects and ignoring the quality of the screenplay.
As you might have guessed, the advent of 3D TV doesn't send chills up my spine.

I'm with you. I'll take a rerun episode of Arrested Development over any other new show any day of the week. I just Blue myself!

I think one reason that many of us have reacted negatively to 3DTV is upgrade fatigue (I think someone tossed that term out recently and I really liked it). Less than 12 months ago, HDTV became the standard and analog went away - a process that caused many people to feel almost forced to upgrade otherwise functional analog TV's. In the last decade we have seen HDTV, followed by the addition of DVI or HDMI (which has led to the "obsolescence" of many early, very expensive HDTV's and projectors), Blu-ray, and a total of five different HDMI standards. Now - seven months past the digital change-over and a couple of years into the biggest economic downturn we've seen in a while - they're trying to launch a new standard that has a high likelihood of being obsolete within a few years (when solutions that provide 3D without glasses mature enough to reach the marketplace). And to enjoy that new standard, we need a new TV and a new Blu-ray player. Personally, I'm unimpressed.


I agree. The time will come. I just feel like manufacturers are pushing it on us prematurely, just like they have done with several versions of HDMI and Blu-ray/HD-DVD.


Bingo. From what I read of the CES coverage, several different technologies are well along in the development process that will offer this ability. That's why I worry that these glasses-based system (active shutter, etc) are being pushed out to market to make a quick buck while the options that are more viable in the long term develop.


The old saying about building a better mouse trap still holds true. I just don't feel like getting sold the prototype and getting my finger caught in it while the truly better one gets made...

Can anyone answer the second question in my post here on July 28 last year?:

"Scott, do you need any more beta testers for this? Also how do I get on the pre-order list?

-Hank (early adopter of the 950)"

Thanks.

I can't speak for Scott on the first part, although odds are that they've got a plan in place already for beta testing. As for the second part, there's not a pre-order list yet. Outlaw doesn't like to do pre-orders unless they have a product that has left the factory and will be delivered very soon. More often than not, they don't do pre-orders at all.

Hi Gonk,

I understand your points and agree with your analysis. One thing to keep in mind is that I don't believe this 3D tech is going to be forced on anyone anytime soon. It will be a long time before another change of broadcast TV standards occurs, whether it is HDTV to super HDTV or HDTV to 3D. And the movies will continue to be sold in DVD and blu-ray non-3D HD formats for a very long time. Adding 3D capability to a system will be an option for people to purchase if they want it or ignore it if they don't.

The newer hardware will eventually all include the 3D features at basically no added cost, but the old equipment will still work fine. And non-3D versions of equipment will continue to be sold until the 3D features don't add cost.

It's a self-imposed desire to have the latest and greatest and be dissatisfied if our gear is missing some new feature that often drives us to upgrade. But anyone who chooses to be an early adopter should do so knowing that it comes at a price! Expensive, buggy, frequent obsolescence, incompatibilities, etc. etc. Most have us have done it and suffered the consequences. Caveat emptor! Right?

So those of you who wish to wait until 3D tech proves itself as worthwhile or until the tech matures, more power to you. But it isn't a bad thing for the manufacturers to create the technology and make it available on the marketplace. I agree that they are trying to rush 3D to avoid the inevitable collapse in AV sales once the mainstream users have all bought their HDTVs, blurays, and enhanced sound systems, and the market returns to a more normal replacement cycle of ~10 years per device. I'd try the same thing if I were in their situation.

I'll buy 3D once it seems like the glitches are worked out. I used to be first in line but I don't have enough patience anymore for the bugs! So now I try to follow close behind watching for when the prices start to fall and issues are resolved. The sooner they sell the first generation of sketchy equipment to the first round of buyers, the sooner I'll be able to buy the third generation that actually works well!

Even the digital switch last year didn't "force" HD on consumers, if we want to get picky about that. I'm not worried about having 3D forced on me. The catch is that the industry as a whole has done such a poor job of consumer education and such a good job of confusion that we are going to see a lot more confused consumers out there because a handful of large corporations are trying to make a big deal about 3D over the next year or two. I suspect that cost will keep most people from being too caught up in it - the lack of discussion of prices at CES suggests that this won't come cheap - but it is the same sort of marketing mayhem that we've seen from HDMI over the last five years (and I think we all know how highly I approve of their long-term planning... ).

If 3D is an important feature then I agree it is prudent to wait for the bugs to be fixed. However, the other driving factor is 3D content. The technology could be fine but if there are only a handful of good 3D movies it makes the purchase of the necessary gear less desirable. By "good" I'm referring to plot, character development, story line etc and the appropriate use of 3D. As an example of inappropriate use of technology I point to certain SACD or DVD-A discs. I've got examples that really use the surround speakers yielding an unnatural distracting experience. So, IMO 3D technology and 3D content must mature before we will see any significant level of adoption.

You KNOW George Lucas is going to pay ILM to invent the software to remake all 6 Star Wars movies in 3D. How could he resist?

Will that be enough 3D content for you?

I think that is one of the issues here. With BluRay, you could take the old source material and convert it to 1080p and you've got a library that's pretty robust. I just can't imagine how you're going to take old movies and turn them into 3D in a way that would actually look decent. So is anyone going to buy a 3D TV so they can watch the very few movies that have actually been shot in 3D? Now the other factor that may influence here is not the movie crowd but the gaming people. Sony is already talking about producing 3D games. I believe MW2 has grossed more than any movie ever, so that is a pretty huge market. As for me? If it is main stream when my TV dies, I'd take a look. But I wouldn't be in any hurry to go out and buy one. How many people would is the question.

Maybe older movies could be made to look 3D, I don't know. But if they could it wouldn't be enough for me to pay a premium for 3D equipment and repurchase my movie collection in that format. I have been very selective about which of my existing DVD movies I buy in BluRay. They have to be ones I watch fairly often because I enjoy the story and they have good cinematography. As I noted earlier I don't think 3D implementation, even if is judged desirable by the general public, will leapfrog BluRay and BluRay has a long way to go to overtake DVD! There is time to figure out if 3D will move from being a gimmick to mainstream acceptance.

So, I'm not going to hold my breath while waiting for Star Wars to possibly be reconfigured to 3D in hopes of jump starting the 3D format. Gee, they've not been released in BluRay yet!

Recently I was in a Magnolia (a "high-end" chain affliated with Best-Buy), and noticed that a number of the DVD's that they were showing seemed to have a artifical 3D type effect when shown on LCDs. It was particularly noticable on a the most recent version of King Kong. The sales guy claimed it was an artifact of the upconverting DVD player. I was almost wondering if there is some slight of hand going on to make 3D more acceptable? Has anyone else seen the effect I noticed?

It could be motion artifacts you're seeing, or it could be how the TV's are set up (contrast, color, sharpness at MAX in the showroom.) One thing I noticed with LCD's when I was shopping for a new HD tv last year was no matter what the refresh rate the set had the motion artifacts were still present. I'd also read the comment that some movies with real actors looked like it was a cartoon movie on LCD. I did notice that effect in the showrooms (that's why I bought a plasma.)

I should have been clearer on one point. The 3D effect was a receding effect rather then the overblown effect seen in a lot of movies where the object comes towards you.

I believe it is as feasible to 3Dize a 2D movie as it is to colorize a black and white movie. If you remember when the first movie colorizations were done, they looked terrible. It was very expensive to do it by hand coloring each frame manually and humans did a poor job. But many of the more modern colorized versions actually look really good, often indistinguishable from a native color movie. Computers have made it relatively cheap and easy to colorize a movie with high quality results. The human identifies the color of various objects and the computer follows them across frames and helps minimize the amount of work.

The same kind of software would be needed to create a 3D movie from a 2D original. The humans have to queue the system by telling it which objects are at what depths and the computer can follow objects frame-to-frame and generate the calculated left/right views. It won't be as good as a originally 3D filmed movie because there won't be as much variation in depth of different objects. But I suspect it would be 90% as effective. A viewer would have to look closely to notice, for example, that all the objects sitting on a desk are in the same plane as the desk while the person standing in front of it is in another plane.

Generating a 3D version of a 2D movie will still be much more expensive than creating a blu-ray from an existing film which really just involves some touch up of the film and then rescanning with a high rez scanner. Unless the film is badly damaged (faded, scratched, etc) in which case making a good blu-ray release can be a major undertaking.

I think I have seen the same type of effect that 73Bruin saw. I was in Best Buy, seeing if they had any good deals on movies on blu ray. A TV and blu ray player were set up nearby, to demonstrate the picture quality of HDTV and blu ray. The TV was an LCD, between 32 and 37 inches. Batman Begins was playing. I saw the scene where Batman is trying to save Rachel after she is drugged. The police are chasing them. The Batmobile, police cars, and helicopter had very distinct edges. It was sort of like a 3D look. This was more than a year ago, so I don't think there was any slight-of-hand involved.

I wonder if the effect is due to the fact that the TVs at Best Buy and other big box retailers are set to "torch" mode with brightness and contrast at very high settings. Setting the contrast at high levels creates a halo effect.

That would be my guess. I was shopping for TV's for my mom 2 weeks ago and I checked the menu of every set we looked at...and every one was set at max contrast and color.

I usually attribute that "effect" to having things like the "smooth motion", 120/240Hz and sharpness cranked all the way up. It takes all of the "film" look out. It looks/feels weird to me.