Has anyone given this a shot yet? I've gotten blu-ray to play on my macbook pro and now I want to push it a little further and see if I can get 3D.

If you do get 3D to work, what glasses (if any) did you buy to get that to work?

5/14/2013 8:33:15 PM

you can hook it up to a 3D TV or projector, set the output to side-by-side, and watch 3D content that way. If you want to view the 3D content directly on the screen of your MBP, the only simple way to do that is to watch it through red-cyan glasses, and at that point you will be losing muchof the color and it will otherwise fuck with your vision (I only recommend it for short-form content)

5/14/2013 10:31:24 PM

I was thinking more of a theater-like or regular 3DTV experience... Is that even possible? If so, what would be the steps to pull this off?

Any recommended programs?

5/17/2013 4:30:28 PM

Why?

5/20/2013 3:29:09 AM

I thought no Macs will support Blu-Ray and because of that no 3D Blu-Ray. Just my 2 cents that could be completely wrong.

5/20/2013 7:50:01 PM

They make external Blu-ray drives that work just fine on Macs. Also you could pirate/copy the files over or use NAS to access the file content.

5/20/2013 9:19:36 PM

If you want to view them on your macbook pro (or any laptop/computer monitor) I doubt the refresh rate will be high enough to make it worthwhile.

5/20/2013 10:09:27 PM

You only need 60hz for displays that use passive-shutter glasses and 120hz for active shutter. So MBP could technically handle passive 3D. Dimenco, a company that manufactures glasses-free (autostereoscopic) digital signage displays actually demoed a lenticular lens at NAB conference that would go over MBP's screen and allow for glasses-free 3D (although i don't think they have ever made a commercially-available version)

5/21/2013 11:28:59 PM

I know some of those words.

However, my understanding is that to see movies (24Hz) and TV (60Hz? 30Hz? I forget) in 3D you need want 240Hz.

240 because you need want 120 for each eye. 120 is the smallest number evenly divisible by 24 and 30/60. That way, you can see either frame rate in a whole number of refreshes per frame, without weird interpolation.

[Edited on May 22, 2013 at 12:08 AM. Reason : want, not need.]

5/22/2013 12:04:33 AM

you're right on 120/240 numbers, I had my math wrong. If it was not for 24p, 60 would have worked. 60hz tv can still show 24p content, but those use the pull down,

You need 60120 for each eye, because it is the smallest number divisible by 24, 30, and 60. Active shutter glasses work by blocking each of the eyes intermittently and displaying all 1080 lines for each eye at least 60 times per second, so at least 120240HZ tv is required for active 3D. Passive 3d uses a lenticular lens which directs odd and even lines on the TV at lightly different angles, and the passive glasses use circular polarization to filter out only the lines that each eye is supposed to see. So passive 3D TV's can refresh at 60120hz , but they do lose half of the vertical resolution. Most of the 3D TV's nowadays do run at at least 120hz, and many do at 240 and above, although I don't see a point of going beyond that.


[Edited on May 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM. Reason : maths]

5/22/2013 12:14:35 AM

So possible solutions for the refresh rate... if not built into the mbp... would be to buy an external display that might take a thunderbolt line or conversion to HDMI...

http://122.255.90.243/news/a20101124PR200.html

Can the graphics card handle 240 hz?

[Edited on May 23, 2013 at 6:48 AM. Reason : link]

5/23/2013 6:47:40 AM

Are you trying to watch 3D on you actual MB display, or are you trying to just use your MBP as a 3D BluRay player for an external TV? Those two very different scenarios.

5/24/2013 11:56:00 AM

I'm considering whatever will work in all honesty... If the first scenario doesn't work, what's another scenario where it will?

5/25/2013 12:12:15 AM

1. Buy a $600-1200 3D HDTV or a $200 3D monitor
2. Hook it up to your MBP with an HDMI cable
3. Hit up your favorite torrent site for SBS 3D content
4. ...
5. $Profit$

5/25/2013 1:21:03 AM

Yeah. That.

5/25/2013 11:04:54 AM