Sony sacrifices lossless audio for PS3 3D Blu-ray playback

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for nousemercenary
nousemercenary

415

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 nousemercenary
Member since 2005 • 415 Posts

Sony sacrifices lossless audio for PS3 3D Blu-ray playback
Source

In my opinion, I'm fine with regular DTS audio or Dolby Digital. Granted, lossless audio is awesome, but I think I'd prefer my games in 3D than worry about the audio.

Avatar image for MonkeySpot
MonkeySpot

6070

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 MonkeySpot
Member since 2010 • 6070 Posts

Hmmm...

I saw "Resident Evil: Afterlife" two nights ago and about two minutes into the film I took the glasses off and gingerly set them on my leg for the rest of the movie. I cannot stand 3D as it exists today. Part of the reason is that I already wear glasses so another pair only makes the bridge of my nose feel oogie, but also I think that the technology hasn't come along very much since the 50s when it was last a cinema gimmick of note... Poeple say the James Cameron camera looks good, but interesting optic tricks for the sake of doing it is like shiny graphics with lame or completely missing gameplay in a title. It's just not necessary for presentation and impact. Past a novelty, it doesn't do anything for the viewer in terms of telling the story.

Friends of mine have played "Gran Turismo" in 3D, and "Killzone 3", and when asked about the involvement of 3D in depth perception for "Gran Turismo" all of them said that sound and force-feedback made greater impact along the development of the GT franchise than 3D seems to be doing for it now. The "rumble" feature allowed the driver to "feel" the road, and then when coupled with the motor-driven wheel tension, created a much better immersion than the 3D does. I would like to see what 3D racing is like on, say, a NASCAR title, because draw-in distances on an oval track have always been problematic and perhaps 3D might lend itself to achieving a better corner, but I tend ot doubt it's going to be as meaningful as rumble and force feedback tension simulating G-forces.

When asked about "Killzone 3", most reported that it was "neat" or "cool lookin'" but that it kind of threw their aim and reaction times down, marred colors which, without lenses and played in 2D, "looked fantastic". In short, they felt that the 3D got in the way of an otherwise great experience.

For both games, everyone agreed that extended gaming sessions would not be possible using 3D.

I would rather that they keep the sound (and options like surround, DTS, 5.1, 7.1) as apposed to backing the 3D. Even if I COULD afford a 3D television right now, I wouldn't buy one.

Not a fan.

Avatar image for clr84651
clr84651

5634

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#3 clr84651
Member since 2010 • 5634 Posts

3D>>>lossless audio. Sony did what they had to do.

Avatar image for Fightingfan
Fightingfan

38011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Fightingfan
Member since 2010 • 38011 Posts
Uncompressed audio > 3D
Avatar image for MonkeySpot
MonkeySpot

6070

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 MonkeySpot
Member since 2010 • 6070 Posts

Uncompressed audio > 3DFightingfan

Testify.

:)

Avatar image for JoKeR_421
JoKeR_421

8920

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 JoKeR_421
Member since 2006 • 8920 Posts
so if ur watching 3d movies u get compressed audio? is that what they mean?
Avatar image for Bladex2k
Bladex2k

2755

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 Bladex2k
Member since 2003 • 2755 Posts

Hmmm...

I saw "Resident Evil: Afterlife" two nights ago and about two minutes into the film I took the glasses off and gingerly set them on my leg for the rest of the movie. I cannot stand 3D as it exists today. Part of the reason is that I already wear glasses so another pair only makes the bridge of my nose feel oogie, but also I think that the technology hasn't come along very much since the 50s when it was last a cinema gimmick of note... Poeple say the James Cameron camera looks good, but interesting optic tricks for the sake of doing it is like shiny graphics with lame or completely missing gameplay in a title. It's just not necessary for presentation and impact. Past a novelty, it doesn't do anything for the viewer in terms of telling the story.

Friends of mine have played "Gran Turismo" in 3D, and "Killzone 3", and when asked about the involvement of 3D in depth perception for "Gran Turismo" all of them said that sound and force-feedback made greater impact along the development of the GT franchise than 3D seems to be doing for it now. The "rumble" feature allowed the driver to "feel" the road, and then when coupled with the motor-driven wheel tension, created a much better immersion than the 3D does. I would like to see what 3D racing is like on, say, a NASCAR title, because draw-in distances on an oval track have always been problematic and perhaps 3D might lend itself to achieving a better corner, but I tend ot doubt it's going to be as meaningful as rumble and force feedback tension simulating G-forces.

When asked about "Killzone 3", most reported that it was "neat" or "cool lookin'" but that it kind of threw their aim and reaction times down, marred colors which, without lenses and played in 2D, "looked fantastic". In short, they felt that the 3D got in the way of an otherwise great experience.

For both games, everyone agreed that extended gaming sessions would not be possible using 3D.

I would rather that they keep the sound (and options like surround, DTS, 5.1, 7.1) as apposed to backing the 3D. Even if I COULD afford a 3D television right now, I wouldn't buy one.

Not a fan.

MonkeySpot
exactly i think all these guys forgot not every1 wheres contacts, its hard for people that wear glasses to put another pear over the 1 they're already wearing. they need to make some googles size set for people with glasses
Avatar image for KHAndAnime
KHAndAnime

17565

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 KHAndAnime
Member since 2009 • 17565 Posts
So we will only lose lossless sound if we choose to watch the Blu-Ray in 3D...right?
Avatar image for jer_1
jer_1

7451

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#9 jer_1
Member since 2003 • 7451 Posts

Lossless audio definitely is a more wanted quality than 3d. The techs just a waste right now, the improved audio would be a lot more meaningful to a lot more people.

Avatar image for JohnF111
JohnF111

14190

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#10 JohnF111
Member since 2010 • 14190 Posts

Hmmm...

I saw "Resident Evil: Afterlife" two nights ago and about two minutes into the film I took the glasses off and gingerly set them on my leg for the rest of the movie. I cannot stand 3D as it exists today. Part of the reason is that I already wear glasses so another pair only makes the bridge of my nose feel oogie, but also I think that the technology hasn't come along very much since the 50s when it was last a cinema gimmick of note... Poeple say the James Cameron camera looks good, but interesting optic tricks for the sake of doing it is like shiny graphics with lame or completely missing gameplay in a title. It's just not necessary for presentation and impact. Past a novelty, it doesn't do anything for the viewer in terms of telling the story.

Friends of mine have played "Gran Turismo" in 3D, and "Killzone 3", and when asked about the involvement of 3D in depth perception for "Gran Turismo" all of them said that sound and force-feedback made greater impact along the development of the GT franchise than 3D seems to be doing for it now. The "rumble" feature allowed the driver to "feel" the road, and then when coupled with the motor-driven wheel tension, created a much better immersion than the 3D does. I would like to see what 3D racing is like on, say, a NASCAR title, because draw-in distances on an oval track have always been problematic and perhaps 3D might lend itself to achieving a better corner, but I tend ot doubt it's going to be as meaningful as rumble and force feedback tension simulating G-forces.

When asked about "Killzone 3", most reported that it was "neat" or "cool lookin'" but that it kind of threw their aim and reaction times down, marred colors which, without lenses and played in 2D, "looked fantastic". In short, they felt that the 3D got in the way of an otherwise great experience.

For both games, everyone agreed that extended gaming sessions would not be possible using 3D.

I would rather that they keep the sound (and options like surround, DTS, 5.1, 7.1) as apposed to backing the 3D. Even if I COULD afford a 3D television right now, I wouldn't buy one.

Not a fan.

MonkeySpot

Household 3D is a totally different type of 3D from the cinema.... Look them up.

Avatar image for Laser_Hunter
Laser_Hunter

4780

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 Laser_Hunter
Member since 2010 • 4780 Posts

[QUOTE="MonkeySpot"]

Hmmm...

I saw "Resident Evil: Afterlife" two nights ago and about two minutes into the film I took the glasses off and gingerly set them on my leg for the rest of the movie. I cannot stand 3D as it exists today. Part of the reason is that I already wear glasses so another pair only makes the bridge of my nose feel oogie, but also I think that the technology hasn't come along very much since the 50s when it was last a cinema gimmick of note... Poeple say the James Cameron camera looks good, but interesting optic tricks for the sake of doing it is like shiny graphics with lame or completely missing gameplay in a title. It's just not necessary for presentation and impact. Past a novelty, it doesn't do anything for the viewer in terms of telling the story.

Friends of mine have played "Gran Turismo" in 3D, and "Killzone 3", and when asked about the involvement of 3D in depth perception for "Gran Turismo" all of them said that sound and force-feedback made greater impact along the development of the GT franchise than 3D seems to be doing for it now. The "rumble" feature allowed the driver to "feel" the road, and then when coupled with the motor-driven wheel tension, created a much better immersion than the 3D does. I would like to see what 3D racing is like on, say, a NASCAR title, because draw-in distances on an oval track have always been problematic and perhaps 3D might lend itself to achieving a better corner, but I tend ot doubt it's going to be as meaningful as rumble and force feedback tension simulating G-forces.

When asked about "Killzone 3", most reported that it was "neat" or "cool lookin'" but that it kind of threw their aim and reaction times down, marred colors which, without lenses and played in 2D, "looked fantastic". In short, they felt that the 3D got in the way of an otherwise great experience.

For both games, everyone agreed that extended gaming sessions would not be possible using 3D.

I would rather that they keep the sound (and options like surround, DTS, 5.1, 7.1) as apposed to backing the 3D. Even if I COULD afford a 3D television right now, I wouldn't buy one.

Not a fan.

JohnF111

Household 3D is a totally different type of 3D from the cinema.... Look them up.

They still use glasses which are the lamest things ever. Nobody who already wheres prescription glasses wants to try and smush another thick pair of glasses on top.
Avatar image for MonkeySpot
MonkeySpot

6070

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 MonkeySpot
Member since 2010 • 6070 Posts

@JohnF:

I could care less, the NEED for it is still in question no matter the technique. I was sighting Cameron's camera because it's supposedly the most advanced tech & took around 7 1/2 years to make, and I'm still not impressed with the effect and i don't think it's something which needs to be used across the board in every visual presentation. If household stuff is less expensive then by proxy it's probably less impressive too.

Avatar image for MethodManFTW
MethodManFTW

26516

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 MethodManFTW
Member since 2009 • 26516 Posts

@JohnF:

I could care less

MonkeySpot

Yes you could.

Avatar image for PoisoN_Facecam0
PoisoN_Facecam0

3734

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 PoisoN_Facecam0
Member since 2009 • 3734 Posts
Uncompressed audio > 3DFightingfan
hell yes.. oh well, its not like i'm gonna be watching many 3d movies anyway..
Avatar image for Yazu13
Yazu13

5185

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 88

User Lists: 0

#16 Yazu13
Member since 2005 • 5185 Posts

I still hate 3D. A gimmick is stilla pointlessgimmick no matter how many commercials they advertise for it or no matter how popular and in demandthe marketers say it is.

Avatar image for wooooode
wooooode

16665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#17 wooooode
Member since 2002 • 16665 Posts
Uncompressed audio > 3DFightingfan
Agreed, audio just does so much more for a movie or game.
Avatar image for Sherjas24
Sherjas24

665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 Sherjas24
Member since 2007 • 665 Posts

I cannot wait to get a 3D tv in a couple of years.

Avatar image for Wild_Card
Wild_Card

4034

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#19 Wild_Card
Member since 2005 • 4034 Posts
[QUOTE="JohnF111"]

[QUOTE="MonkeySpot"]

Hmmm...

I saw "Resident Evil: Afterlife" two nights ago and about two minutes into the film I took the glasses off and gingerly set them on my leg for the rest of the movie. I cannot stand 3D as it exists today. Part of the reason is that I already wear glasses so another pair only makes the bridge of my nose feel oogie, but also I think that the technology hasn't come along very much since the 50s when it was last a cinema gimmick of note... Poeple say the James Cameron camera looks good, but interesting optic tricks for the sake of doing it is like shiny graphics with lame or completely missing gameplay in a title. It's just not necessary for presentation and impact. Past a novelty, it doesn't do anything for the viewer in terms of telling the story.

Friends of mine have played "Gran Turismo" in 3D, and "Killzone 3", and when asked about the involvement of 3D in depth perception for "Gran Turismo" all of them said that sound and force-feedback made greater impact along the development of the GT franchise than 3D seems to be doing for it now. The "rumble" feature allowed the driver to "feel" the road, and then when coupled with the motor-driven wheel tension, created a much better immersion than the 3D does. I would like to see what 3D racing is like on, say, a NASCAR title, because draw-in distances on an oval track have always been problematic and perhaps 3D might lend itself to achieving a better corner, but I tend ot doubt it's going to be as meaningful as rumble and force feedback tension simulating G-forces.

When asked about "Killzone 3", most reported that it was "neat" or "cool lookin'" but that it kind of threw their aim and reaction times down, marred colors which, without lenses and played in 2D, "looked fantastic". In short, they felt that the 3D got in the way of an otherwise great experience.

For both games, everyone agreed that extended gaming sessions would not be possible using 3D.

I would rather that they keep the sound (and options like surround, DTS, 5.1, 7.1) as apposed to backing the 3D. Even if I COULD afford a 3D television right now, I wouldn't buy one.

Not a fan.

Laser_Hunter

Household 3D is a totally different type of 3D from the cinema.... Look them up.

They still use glasses which are the lamest things ever. Nobody who already wheres prescription glasses wants to try and smush another thick pair of glasses on top.

agreed. I'll def be waiting untill i can buy a glass's free 3d Tv before even thinking of going 3d. Also when the prices get a bit more in line with what im willing to spend ;)
Avatar image for newhighscore
newhighscore

2037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#20 newhighscore
Member since 2008 • 2037 Posts

agreed. I'll def be waiting untill i can buy a glass's free 3d Tv before even thinking of going 3d. Also when the prices get a bit more in line with what im willing to spend ;)

Ive got a 3D tv that doesnt require glasses. I call it my window.

Its so ridiculous. So if I invite ppl over to watch a flick, I gotta have enough glasses for everybody? Or is it gonna be byog?