[Phil Hinton]

AVForums Home Cinema Podcast : 11th December 2008

We discuss high end Blu-ray players and what the future holds for them. We interview Eric Kingdon from Sony and discuss the company's projectors and Blu-ray players. Plus we look forward to January's CES show and what we might expect to see in terms of new technology.

(you may need to right-click and save).

0:01:00 Discussing High end Blu-Ray players.
0:08:40 Interview with Eric Kingdon, product specialist for Sony Europe.
0:48:00 Looking forward to CES 2009 in January.


Time: 0:56:55 Size: 52.11MB

Please reply to this thread with your feedback.

[imjay]

3D is FINALLY going from fantasy to reality with both TVs and Projectors coming to market (some already available) advertised as "3D Ready".

Also, manufacturers are already bringing to the market stand along systems that promise to convert any and all 2D video into a true 3D output - makers like DDD and products like XpanD are available without the need of a specially equipped PC in between the source and the display.

I (and I am sure many others) want clear and reliable on where multi-dimensional viewing is headed - what will work and what probably won't.

For example, if I invest in a new big flat panel lcd that is "3D Ready" with 120Hz refresh/frame capability will I enjoy investing $700 in a basic XpanD system. I have this vision of my bride and I sitting side-by-side with our XpanD glasses on being WOWed by all of our old movies in 3D either watching our big screen display or our 120 plus image from our front projector.

Also, other 3D systems/schemes seem to be emerging for home use that require no special glasses yet producing true 3D just as Robert Heinlein foretold in his SciFi novels - he called it StereoVision.

Since the invention of television and movie projection we have been stuck with 2D flat viewing.

My bottom line question is can we FINALLY expect true 3D for home use and are these emerging products for 2009 and 2010 going to deliver on that promise??

[Pecker]

I am extremely suspicious of 3D.

Steve W

[Rasczak]

Another excellent podcast - thank you

Not sure I agree with the comments about downloads. I fully concurr that it is all data but downloads, like any other broadcast, will always be subjected to bandwidth pressure. However good compression gets the distributer will want file size as small as possible to minimise download time and server storage overheads whilst maximising potential customer base. By contrast disc based distribution is more flexible - there is no more cost associated with using 51% of the capacity of a BD50 or 100%. And BD bandwidth is somewhat higher than we can expect from downloads for a very long time.

On a slightly more critical note I would have liked to see a deeper look at 'high end' Blu-ray players - the discussion in this podcast was just a quick chat before getting to the Sony interview. It would be good to hear the views of what the likes of Denon, Arcam (etc) feel they can offer. Where are they focusing their efforts? For example do they think they can offer a real performance dividend by adding post-processing for 1080p/24 content? And how extensively are they focusing on the interlaced side, namely 1080i (which will become more and more important for us Europeans) and SD DVD 480i/576i. And what about custom connectivity? The new DenonLink would be a good talking point.

[imjay]

I'm not sure I understand what "suspicious" means.

I am VERY wary/reluctant to invest cash into an image processing unit that promises it can transcode 2D video onto a genuine 3D output unless I can personally see a demo.

I think I understand the basic concept of dual 60 Hz streams sent to a compatible 120Hz display or projector with special glasses that sync with the two alternating 60Hz images. I'm a little fuzzy about how 3D will work without the need of special glasses but I'm sure the technology has matured enough to be in the pipeline.

So far as 3D in general goes if you do some Commercial Theater research you will learn that before long most all will be upgraded to digital projection systems with 3D image and the necessary silver screen and also that movie producers are completely on the "band wagon" and planning to make a lot of 3D content using the latest processes - NOT the cheesy stuff from the 50s. The Theaters and movie industry are very serious about implementing upgrades that will draw people away from their home displays to their venues again plus the industry estimate is that a 3D ticket will be worth at least $3 to $4 more than 2D. Cathy and I have not been to a Commercial Theater since we implemented our Home Theater system almost two years ago and it would take something pretty darn special to get us back into one of those rooms crowded in with the rude and unwashed masses again!!

The appearance is that the next big evolution step in visual entertainment will be multi-dimensional whether you call it 3D or StereoVision - a step that could be as significant as Silent to Talking or B&W to Color.

My hope is the forum folk after the 2009 trade shows and conferences will be able to fill in the blanks and let us all know what will be worth the investment and what will not.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by imjay

I'm not sure I understand what "suspicious" means.

I'm suspicious as to its merits as an art form.

In the history of 3D we've not seen a good 3D film. Not only that, but we've not seen a good, cinematic use of 3D that anyone would want to re-create.

Steve W

[Pecker]

Just finished listening to that, and congratulations to all on yet another super production.

Some interesting issues raised, not least of which is the possibility of improving PQ on Blu-ray Disc.

I was pleased to hear a little discussion of downloads again - some of the problems were raised, but not all. As I see it, the problems are:

- General internet/broadband speeds
- People prefering 'ownership' to be physical (who wants to buy their brother a download for Christmas?)
- The proximity of people's PCs to their TVs (who puts their PC in the living room, next to the TV?)
- The problem of storage (if your HDD goes you stand to lose your entire film and music collection)

Maybe you could have a podcast just on this one issue, Phil?

Steve W

[eiren]

Originally Posted by Pecker

I'm suspicious as to its merits as an art form.

In the history of 3D we've not seen a good 3D film. Not only that, but we've not seen a good, cinematic use of 3D that anyone would want to re-create.

Steve W

I thought it was done very well with Beowulf... oh and Friday The 13th Part III

Or maybe even Flesh For Frankenstein.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by eiren

I thought it was done very well with Beowulf... oh and Friday The 13th Part III

Or maybe even Flesh For Frankenstein.

The relative merits (and otherwise) of all those films are largely evident in their 2D versions.

At best you could say that 3D didn't get in the way. At worst you have a crossbow bolt flying out of the screen at 6mph on a wire.

The truly great films which have also been shown in 3D can be counted on one hand finger; Dial 'M' for Murder. In 2D it's a typically wonderful Hitchcock thriller. In 3D it's impact is diminished as you wait for the next pathetic 3D gimmick.

Best reserved for the covers of compilations by The Cramps, methinks.

The biggest problem with 3D is that it comes attached to the concept that the screen should look as much like real life as possible. In the history of cinema any technique which attempts to do this usually fails, and the best examples of cinema are those which use art to distort reality, and find the real truth in that distortion.

Choosing to make a film in 3D because real life is in 3D is a bit like changing the nature of poetry because people don't talk in lines and verses in real life, or criticising a Picasso because all the eyes point in a different direction to the noses. In other words, it misses the point of what that art form is supposed to be about in the first place.

Steve W

[junipaire]

Going to download this, thanks,

[kingfats]

Cheers great podcast,have the 5000 myself so enjoyed Eric Kingdon's contribution.

[Urien Rheged]

Didn't really appreciate the comment about LCD's should only be used in other rooms in the house rather than as a main display. LCD owners are all experiencing some sort of huge mass delusion that their displays are actually perfectly good then apparently? Bit of Plasma fanboyism there I thought

Other than that comment great podcast as usual I thought

[GrahamMG]

Hi R1pley.

I think if you listen to the full comment you might find it was light hearted moment and I was referring to my own house :-)

Having seen just about every LCD and Plasma model and honestly as I'm within the industry, would have the choice of most of them, I would still have a larger plasma over an LCD on PQ. I am not biased (frankly never was) these days either as I am not involved in Plasma sales. A good plasma is a nice screen, LCD's are coming on in quality all the time (as I said) and of course can be rather more affordable but my LCD's are in the kitchen, conservatory and bedrooms, pride of place for the main 50" TV is a high quality plasma simply cos it has better PQ at that size. Put side by side I doubt anyone would argue that one. Each to his or her own naturally and LCD is getting better, but have a look at the latest Kuro or the forthcoming Panny pro jobbies, they are pretty much as good as it currently gets.

Anyway, glad you enjoyed the podcast.

[namuk]

Another good podcast keep it up

[Louis Mazzini]

Originally Posted by Pecker

The relative merits (and otherwise) of all those films are largely evident in their 2D versions.

At best you could say that 3D didn't get in the way. At worst you have a crossbow bolt flying out of the screen at 6mph on a wire.

The truly great films which have also been shown in 3D can be counted on one hand finger; Dial 'M' for Murder. In 2D it's a typically wonderful Hitchcock thriller. In 3D it's impact is diminished as you wait for the next pathetic 3D gimmick.

Best reserved for the covers of compilations by The Cramps, methinks.

The biggest problem with 3D is that it comes attached to the concept that the screen should look as much like real life as possible. In the history of cinema any technique which attempts to do this usually fails, and the best examples of cinema are those which use art to distort reality, and find the real truth in that distortion.

Choosing to make a film in 3D because real life is in 3D is a bit like changing the nature of poetry because people don't talk in lines and verses in real life, or criticising a Picasso because all the eyes point in a different direction to the noses. In other words, it misses the point of what that art form is supposed to be about in the first place.

Steve W

Steve,

Here’s my take on this:

Cinema only kicked off its history with a couple of decades of silent films because they didn’t have the technical know-how to make films with recorded soundtracks.

Once sound was established as an essential tool, cinema only spent the next few decades in black & white because they didn’t have the technical know-how (or money) to make films in colour.

There are some great exceptions to the above, of course, but not in relevant numbers.

If we can imagine a slightly different world to the one we live in where the first days of cinema hadn’t faced those technical limitations, and they had been able to make films with sound and in colour right from day one, then that’s what would have happened. Throw into the mix a technically simple and perfect 3D system - one with no need for glasses - and all films would have been stereoscopic too.

No one would dismiss those films with a soundtrack, or those shot on colour film stock, as lacking artistic merit because they made a basic attempt to mimic on screen the way we perceive the world in reality. And the same should go for 3D.

I’ll go you one further: I seriously believe that 3D is a far more valid film-making tool from both a story-telling point of view, and as an artistic tool, than the use of colour. We just haven’t seen it yet!

The problem with 3D for most stereoscopic-sceptics is twofold: It still requires decoding goggles of one form or another, and it has almost exclusively been used so far for poor b-movies and kids films.

Geek alert: I dabble in stereoscopic photography and find “flat” photographs desperately lacking in the sense of immersion - not just literal but metaphorical - that is offered by 3D photography. I recommend you have a look at some good quality stereoscopic photos and I’m confident that you will be mesmerised by their power to draw you into the picture and engage you emotionally far more than a 2D picture can. (Remember looking at “Viewmaster” pictures as a child - and remember how long you’d stare at a single image for? I say it wasn’t because you were enjoying a 3D “gimmick”, but because the picture’s depth drew you in and involved you.) In the right hands, cinema could use this tool to the same powerful effect. In the wrong hands we get Jaws 3D et al. But, as Hollywood - along with the consumer electronics industry this time - seems to be gearing up for a third shot at a mainstream 3D push, I hope and believe that cinema could finally be about to come home…

Cheers, and Happy Christmas! Oh, and thanks to Phil and the guys for the podcast.

[mabo]

You make some very interesting points there Bill.

I suppose if one were to follow the artist analogy, then 3d would very much be sculpture next to the 2d paintings of standard film. When thought of like this, there's a great argument to be made that they can coexist much like colour and B+W etc. It'll be used to evoke different emotions and the like rather than being a progressive, direct replacement for what we are used to.

Of course i'm talking about many years in the future, not the goggled B-movie 3d that exists atm.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Louis Mazzini

Steve,

Here’s my take on this:

Cinema only kicked off its history with a couple of decades of silent films because they didn’t have the technical know-how to make films with recorded soundtracks.

Once sound was established as an essential tool, cinema only spent the next few decades in black & white because they didn’t have the technical know-how (or money) to make films in colour.

There are some great exceptions to the above, of course, but not in relevant numbers.

If we can imagine a slightly different world to the one we live in where the first days of cinema hadn’t faced those technical limitations, and they had been able to make films with sound and in colour right from day one, then that’s what would have happened. Throw into the mix a technically simple and perfect 3D system - one with no need for glasses - and all films would have been stereoscopic too.

No one would dismiss those films with a soundtrack, or those shot on colour film stock, as lacking artistic merit because they made a basic attempt to mimic on screen the way we perceive the world in reality. And the same should go for 3D.

I’ll go you one further: I seriously believe that 3D is a far more valid film-making tool from both a story-telling point of view, and as an artistic tool, than the use of colour. We just haven’t seen it yet!

The problem with 3D for most stereoscopic-sceptics is twofold: It still requires decoding goggles of one form or another, and it has almost exclusively been used so far for poor b-movies and kids films.

Geek alert: I dabble in stereoscopic photography and find “flat” photographs desperately lacking in the sense of immersion - not just literal but metaphorical - that is offered by 3D photography. I recommend you have a look at some good quality stereoscopic photos and I’m confident that you will be mesmerised by their power to draw you into the picture and engage you emotionally far more than a 2D picture can. (Remember looking at “Viewmaster” pictures as a child - and remember how long you’d stare at a single image for? I say it wasn’t because you were enjoying a 3D “gimmick”, but because the picture’s depth drew you in and involved you.) In the right hands, cinema could use this tool to the same powerful effect. In the wrong hands we get Jaws 3D et al. But, as Hollywood - along with the consumer electronics industry this time - seems to be gearing up for a third shot at a mainstream 3D push, I hope and believe that cinema could finally be about to come home…

Cheers, and Happy Christmas! Oh, and thanks to Phil and the guys for the podcast.

I think I've said elsewhere on a similar thread that I'm not closed-minded to the possibility of 3-D being used succesfully, but at the moment I've seen absolutely no evidence of it. Subsequently I find the sort of blithe acceptance that '3-D is the future' to be a little unconvincing.

Steve W

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by mabo

You make some very interesting points there Bill.

I suppose if one were to follow the artist analogy, then 3d would very much be sculpture next to the 2d paintings of standard film. When thought of like this, there's a great argument to be made that they can coexist much like colour and B+W etc. It'll be used to evoke different emotions and the like rather than being a progressive, direct replacement for what we are used to.

Of course i'm talking about many years in the future, not the goggled B-movie 3d that exists atm.

But you see it isn't like paintings v sculpture.

You see sculpture has been around as long as painting. A sculpted, 3-D image is real and a painted/drawn 2-D image is real, as is a 2-D cinema image. All you need to view any of them is your eyes. A 3-D cinema image is most certainly not real, and requires technological enhancements which take a 2-D image (or two 2-D images) and fools your brain into thinking it's a real 3-D image.

I think people don't like 3-D for much the same reasons that they don't like interactive films - remember how they were going to take of once the technological development of DVD arrived? People like to be the audience. Viewers like to be viewers, and to see the artist produce work which draws them voluntarily into involvement through their art. Audiences are largely uncomfortable with being made to participate, and feel forced to be part of the work.

3-D breaks down the audience/artist relationship in an uncomfortably artificial way.

Steve W

[Louis Mazzini]

Originally Posted by Pecker

But you see it isn't like paintings v sculpture.

You see sculpture has been around as long as painting. A sculpted, 3-D image is real and a painted/drawn 2-D image is real, as is a 2-D cinema image. All you need to view any of them is your eyes. A 3-D cinema image is most certainly not real, and requires technological enhancements which take a 2-D image (or two 2-D images) and fools your brain into thinking it's a real 3-D image.

I think people don't like 3-D for much the same reasons that they don't like interactive films - remember how they were going to take of once the technological development of DVD arrived? People like to be the audience. Viewers like to be viewers, and to see the artist produce work which draws them voluntarily into involvement through their art. Audiences are largely uncomfortable with being made to participate, and feel forced to be part of the work.

3-D breaks down the audience/artist relationship in an uncomfortably artificial way.

Steve W

But as you know perfectly well, a 2D moving image film isn’t “real” at all: It’s a complete illusion created by the brain being fooled - exactly the same sort of trick that 3D plays: So, 3D is no more “artificial“ than 2D. (I’d actually argue it’s vastly less so). Oh, and yes, all I need to view regular films is my eyes - and the "technological enhancement" of my glasses...

As for 3-D breaking down the audience/artist relationship in an uncomfortably artificial way, yes, of course it can. Just as bad acting, writing, editing etc can. When all of cinema’s current tools are used well you end up with a good film. Think of 3D as another one of those tools - it’s just that it’s one you haven’t seen used well yet.

[Urien Rheged]

Originally Posted by GrahamMG

Hi R1pley.

I think if you listen to the full comment you might find it was light hearted moment and I was referring to my own house :-)

Having seen just about every LCD and Plasma model and honestly as I'm within the industry, would have the choice of most of them, I would still have a larger plasma over an LCD on PQ. I am not biased (frankly never was) these days either as I am not involved in Plasma sales. A good plasma is a nice screen, LCD's are coming on in quality all the time (as I said) and of course can be rather more affordable but my LCD's are in the kitchen, conservatory and bedrooms, pride of place for the main 50" TV is a high quality plasma simply cos it has better PQ at that size. Put side by side I doubt anyone would argue that one. Each to his or her own naturally and LCD is getting better, but have a look at the latest Kuro or the forthcoming Panny pro jobbies, they are pretty much as good as it currently gets.

Anyway, glad you enjoyed the podcast.

Thanks for replying.
As you said, a high quality 50" plasma can cost more money. Money is a huge factor to a lot of people. Your comment sounded like, to me, that there is no way you would have a LCD as your main display, which I find slightly unfair to people who have chosen LCD as they prefer it to Plasma. Many people are influenced by what the 'experts' say on the podcasts, and discounting LCD as a main display is not 100% fair in my opionion. I personally tried many Plasma screens and I personally preferred the brighter image of a LCD and, as I use it for PC use, PS3 and Xbox 360 I prefer the knowledge that I won't get any image retention or phosphor trails, that I have personally witnessed on large Plasma screens, e.g. PX80. I have not seen a similar priced Plasma that looks as good as my LCD and there is no point in trying to convince myself that my eyes are incorrect and Plasma is better. In fact I have seen many that look worse. I was just surprised to hear the Plasma owner's "never get an LCD" type of comment creaping into a podcast. I think you'd be surprised at how many people take your words as gospel (a compliment to you). I would never discount anything until you've seen it for yourself. Each format has strengths and weaknesses and money is an important factor. My 46" 1080p LCD cost me £899 and I can't find fault with it. The lates Kuro would be a lot more than that so isn't really a fair comparison.

Anyways, I always do enjoy the podcasts, and I mean no offence by my comments, but thought I should share my feelings on this one. Keep up the fantastic work and Happy Xmas

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Louis Mazzini

But as you know perfectly well, a 2D moving image film isn’t “real” at all: It’s a complete illusion created by the brain being fooled - exactly the same sort of trick that 3D plays: So, 3D is no more “artificial“ than 2D. (I’d actually argue it’s vastly less so). Oh, and yes, all I need to view regular films is my eyes - and the "technological enhancement" of my glasses...

That's really not quite the same. Your glasses (or my contact lenses) make the real world look exactly the same as it would if we had good eyesight. 2-D films look exactly like a still photograph, only one that's moving. 3-D does not make things look 3-D in any way that's like the real world, it's very obviously quite different to real life 3-D.

Originally Posted by Louis Mazzini

As for 3-D breaking down the audience/artist relationship in an uncomfortably artificial way, yes, of course it can. Just as bad acting, writing, editing etc can. When all of cinema’s current tools are used well you end up with a good film. Think of 3D as another one of those tools - it’s just that it’s one you haven’t seen used well yet.

And there's the thing.

You can find a list of all the films made in 3-D here:

List of 3-D films

I make it about 130.

There are very few films there that are any good, and of those that are they weren't good because of 3-D, and worked just as well (indeed, pretty much everyone agrees that they worked better) in 2-D.

We've mentioned the advent of sound, of colour, or cinemascope and of surround sound. In each of those instances you didn't have to wait over 130 films before a decent use of the technology appeared.

Either 3-D has just been incredibly unlucky, or there's something distinctly unappealing and unnatural to audiences about the concept.

Steve W

[mabo]

Originally Posted by Pecker

But you see it isn't like paintings v sculpture.

You see sculpture has been around as long as painting. A sculpted, 3-D image is real and a painted/drawn 2-D image is real, as is a 2-D cinema image. All you need to view any of them is your eyes. A 3-D cinema image is most certainly not real, and requires technological enhancements which take a 2-D image (or two 2-D images) and fools your brain into thinking it's a real 3-D image.

I think people don't like 3-D for much the same reasons that they don't like interactive films - remember how they were going to take of once the technological development of DVD arrived? People like to be the audience. Viewers like to be viewers, and to see the artist produce work which draws them voluntarily into involvement through their art. Audiences are largely uncomfortable with being made to participate, and feel forced to be part of the work.

3-D breaks down the audience/artist relationship in an uncomfortably artificial way.

Steve W

I beg to differ. Where is the evidence that 3d art (such as sculptures) have been around as long as 2d (such as cave paintings etc)? AFAIK 2d depictions were around long before any kind of totemic art was developed, though i'd plead a certain amount of ignorance, so would dearly like an expert to correct me.

You'll also note i was talking about an end scenario as i pointed out and as such wasn't referring to the garbled 3D we have now but rather hypothesizing about a concept.

As for saying a sculpted 3d image is real and a 2d image is real, well a thought is real in that it exists in reality - it all depends on how "real" you want the article in question to be - something you feel, see, touch etc. To me, there is enough of a distinction between 2d and 3d for them to both potentially have a place in cinema's future.

[GrahamMG]

Originally Posted by R1PLEY

Thanks for replying.
As you said, a high quality 50" plasma can cost more money. Money is a huge factor to a lot of people. Your comment sounded like, to me, that there is no way you would have a LCD as your main display, which I find slightly unfair to people who have chosen LCD as they prefer it to Plasma. Many people are influenced by what the 'experts' say on the podcasts, and discounting LCD as a main display is not 100% fair in my opionion. I personally tried many Plasma screens and I personally preferred the brighter image of a LCD and, as I use it for PC use, PS3 and Xbox 360 I prefer the knowledge that I won't get any image retention or phosphor trails, that I have personally witnessed on large Plasma screens, e.g. PX80. I have not seen a similar priced Plasma that looks as good as my LCD and there is no point in trying to convince myself that my eyes are incorrect and Plasma is better. In fact I have seen many that look worse. I was just surprised to hear the Plasma owner's "never get an LCD" type of comment creaping into a podcast. I think you'd be surprised at how many people take your words as gospel (a compliment to you). I would never discount anything until you've seen it for yourself. Each format has strengths and weaknesses and money is an important factor. My 46" 1080p LCD cost me £899 and I can't find fault with it. The lates Kuro would be a lot more than that so isn't really a fair comparison.

Anyways, I always do enjoy the podcasts, and I mean no offence by my comments, but thought I should share my feelings on this one. Keep up the fantastic work and Happy Xmas

No offence taken at all, price we all know has a significant place to play in any equipment decision. It is also never wise to debate a purchase choice after it has been made, the discussion will hardly ever be resolved after the fact
Please bear in mind that I said above that I have rather more LCD screens in my house than Plasma's but they are in the smaller sizes (up to 37") and are fine for the use they are put to, a PS3 on one of them for the very reasons you outline (high brightness and less likely but not immune to "image burn").

Plasma doesn't do "cheap" well as you have noticed but on a well built and quality screen it has a PQ advantage that many will pay for. Only the customer can decide if the price/performance is worth paying for of course.

I also did not say "never get an LCD" as these days that is not honest (and you will find I am very consistant and honest).

I am always quite willing to show people what a high quality picture you can get from a screen and on PQ it would still be a Plasma (remember I see just about all of them in my job) from the likes of Pioneer or the Panny Pro jobs but hey maybe 2009 might be the year where a large format LCD outdoes a Kuro 50", they are getting closer. The availability of better quality feeds also narrows the gap.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all.