Blu-ray 3D Discussion Thread

[kjack]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

3-D encoding would be via two discrete video channels that are compressed independently. The second stereo video channel would just occupy the secondary video track space... replacing the "PIP" slot, if you will, but with full 1080p24 resolution. Then, 3-D players could do whatever is required by the user upon playback to send the "3-D" signal to the display devices (whether two projectors, a single LCD TV at 120Hz, etc.).

There's an even more elegant way that is 100% backwards compatible and you can still have PIP. Since BD is based on MPEG-2 transport streams, another transport stream, or another program stream within the transport stream, could be assigned to the new video channel. Players not capable of doing 3D output would ignore the new video channel.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by kjack

There's an even more elegant way that is 100% backwards compatible and you can still have PIP. Since BD is based on MPEG-2 transport streams, another transport stream, or another program stream within the transport stream, could be assigned to the new video channel. Players not capable of doing 3D output would ignore the new video channel.

Thanks.
Would this be better than the Phillips system?
What system does the TDVCodec use? Is the TDVCodec going to be used for 3D on Blu-ray or will we be using mpeg2 or mpeg4/avc or VC1 with 2 transport streams or all of the above?

I assume 3D systems based on mpeg4 or VC1 will be better quality than one based on mpeg2 for a given bitrate (especially lower bitrates)?

If we had a new profile for 3D couldn't we also allow 1080p48/30/50/60 for each eye, and increase the maximum bitrates and other things?

Each transport stream for stereoscopic 3D would be quite similar to each other in picture content - couldn't there be a way to take advantage of the similarity for increased compression efficiency?

Can we have more than than 2 transport streams on Blu-ray for multi-viewpoint 3D (like the system the mpeg group are working on for broadcast 3D (Free Viewpoint Television?) - as in the document below of the meeting on Jan 2008)?
http://wg11.sc29.org/News/w9560.pdf

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I think that they don't see it that way
1) you can always do the red/blue for home
2) some movies have 3D and none 3D versions
3) it is not fully up to them (studios want to push the 3D in theatres but the BDA needs to create real 3D BD)


so in the end they are doing what they can today

Red/blue is a severe degradation of a HT experience. It's not a serious option.

And, we must make the assumption that 3D will bring something special to the film beyond 3D gimmics, or the whole concept is really a waste of time. And whatever that specialness is, will be lost on home video.

How can anyone know, before we experience it, that whatever that nuance is, is acceptable to be lost?

Gary

[Anthony P]

There's an even more elegant way that is 100% backwards compatible and you can still have PIP. Since BD is based on MPEG-2 transport streams, another transport stream, or another program stream within the transport stream, could be assigned to the new video channel. Players not capable of doing 3D output would ignore the new video channel.

thanks K, we always know you can add a lot to a discussion.

just a few questions

1) you said it can have two videos in one transport stream + PiP, when we are talking two channels for videos what does it mean for BW? can we save on the combined BW? if not, I sure hope they don't use 4-6mbps for PiP and so the combined BW is limited even further to a max BW of 18-17mbps each

2)I know it is transport stream (and not MPEG-2) but do AVC and VC-1 use the same stream structure (I think they both do but not sure)?

[Anthony P]

Red/blue is a severe degradation of a HT experience. It's not a serious option.

And, we must make the assumption that 3D will bring something special to the film beyond 3D gimmics, or the whole concept is really a waste of time. And whatever that specialness is, will be lost on home video.

How can anyone know, before we experience it, that whatever that nuance is, is acceptable to be lost?

agree, what I meant is do you really think there is a chance of risking the golden goose? I think waiting on 3D is more dangerous for them (i.e. convince theatres to add 3 D to properly show it then stop movies for a few years until the BDA gets its act together or make 3D movies for theatres but then not release on BD until there is a legit 3D spec.

[kjack]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

1) you said it can have two videos in one transport stream + PiP, when we are talking two channels for videos what does it mean for BW? can we save on the combined BW? if not, I sure hope they don't use 4-6mbps for PiP and so the combined BW is limited even further to a max BW of 18-17mbps each

Of course, the more streams you add, the less BW is available for each stream since there is a limit. There are some BW reduction schemes possible, such as using the difference information for the second stream, along with offset vectors, etc.

Looking at the details of what Panasonic is doing, and I give them a round of applause for doing it, I'm rather disappointed in the implementation unless there were some things lost in the translation from engineering to marketing...

But what it does show is that different 3D solutions are needed for different delivery mechanisms.

One also has to take into account having to convert from one 3D format to another in order to be able to drive current 3D-capable displays. Doing this can have some bad consequences on video quality depending on the source and display 3D formats.

2)I know it is transport stream (and not MPEG-2) but do AVC and VC-1 use the same stream structure (I think they both do but not sure)?

I think they are similar, but don't recall offhand...

[Bobby Henderson]

I think waiting on 3D is more dangerous for them (i.e. convince theatres to add 3 D to properly show it then stop movies for a few years until the BDA gets its act together or make 3D movies for theatres but then not release on BD until there is a legit 3D spec.

I really have to disagree with that. You get very bad results when you rush something. Home theater technology simply isn't mature enough yet to properly support 3D. Movie theater companies don't need to be convinced to install digital 3D equipment. They're already doing so.

240Hz televisions are on the horizon. But little to nothing has been developed in terms of hardware to control LCD-based 3D "shutter" glasses. Those devices must be in perfect sync with the refresh rate of the TV and the content playing from the BD.

I also have to wonder what sorts of additional hardware may be required to properly show 3D content from Blu-ray. The situation is hardly as simple as connecting a pair of shutter glasses to a TV and BD player.

The Real-D format in digital cinema theaters requires theaters to install a silver theater screen so polarization is possible. The projector has to be fitted with a "Z-screen," which actively changes the polarization of light coming from the projector. A Real-D signal processor is installed in one of the projector's accessory bays. That processor works with the movie playback server and Z-screen to optimize the picture as it is being projected. "Ghost-busting" is one problem common to polarized 3D. Real-D has techniques of eliminating ghosting issues. But the most critical thing is the equipment must be set up properly and properly maintained.

Dolby 3D is complicated in its own right. It doesn't use polarization. Instead it uses a rapidly spinning color filter in front of the projector and requires electronically controlled glasses. Those glasses can be expensive and also require the theater to have equipment to clean/sanitize them between shows. That's a deal breaker for a lot of theater operators, which explains why Real-D still is being installed on lots more screens (despite some expensive royalty payments).

Over 1000 digital-cinema equipped theater screens in the United States already have 3D systems installed. Carmike Cinemas has nearly 500 Real-D systems installed in its 2200 screen circuit of theaters. Cinemark signed a deal to install 1500 Real-D systems. Real-D is installing hundreds of systems and with the agreements it has in place it will pass the 5000 screen mark worldwide by 2010. Those numbers don't count the installations Dolby is doing with its 3D system.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

240Hz televisions are on the horizon. But little to nothing has been developed in terms of hardware to control LCD-based 3D "shutter" glasses. Those devices must be in perfect sync with the refresh rate of the TV and the content playing from the BD.

The input is at issue, not just the display rate. I believe the maximum input right now is 60Hz.

After this upcoming analog switchover, the opporunity to define what a TV is for the masses won't occur again for a long time. So, unless the 3D technology is compatible with prevailing sets people own, it will be nothing more than niche.

Hopefully the glasses themselves can self-synchronize if some sort of synchronizing watermark is placed in the frames. Perhaps it can even be audio based.

Gary

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

The Real-D format in digital cinema theaters requires theaters to install a silver theater screen so polarization is possible. The projector has to be fitted with a "Z-screen," which actively changes the polarization of light coming from the projector. A Real-D signal processor is installed in one of the projector's accessory bays. That processor works with the movie playback server and Z-screen to optimize the picture as it is being projected. "Ghost-busting" is one problem common to polarized 3D. Real-D has techniques of eliminating ghosting issues. But the most critical thing is the equipment must be set up properly and properly maintained.

Thanks for putting the info on Z-screen. I googled it and found that it's just a filter placed in front of the lens. The literal silver screen is needed to offset the reduction in brightness normal screens would have. The use of these screens initially didn't make sense to me insofar as 2D projection, but I figured if 2D digital films were presented, the Z-screen just stays there to maintain the same level of brightness.

How does the theater use the same screen with 35mm films? Can they put the Z-screen over the lens so that the brightness level stays the same?

Dolby 3D is complicated in its own right. It doesn't use polarization. Instead it uses a rapidly spinning color filter in front of the projector and requires electronically controlled glasses. Those glasses can be expensive and also require the theater to have equipment to clean/sanitize them between shows. That's a deal breaker for a lot of theater operators, which explains why Real-D still is being installed on lots more screens (despite some expensive royalty payments).

I didn't realize that Dolby's system is far more complicated than that. It explains why it cost US$50 for the glasses.

Theater owners must have the vision to move forward with Real-D or any other system where maintenance is cheap and the glasses can be thrown away. Otherwise they'd balk at Dolby's system with its expensive glasses. The advantage of passive glasses is that it can be customized per film and people can attach the polarized filter on their own glasses.

Too bad I won't be seeing Bolt in 3D or any other Digital 3D films here in the future.


fuad

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

The input is at issue, not just the display rate. I believe the maximum input right now is 60Hz.

The input to the TV doesn't need anything faster than 60Hz. The output from the TV is the real hang up.

In digital cinema, both Real-D and Dolby 3D work from "virtual prints" with 48fps material -basically 2 discrete 24fps JPEG2000 video streams. It's the special 3D hardware that does the extra work. Real-D triple flashes every frame of the movie so there is no perceptible flicker or strobing. The virtual print itself is not encoded at 144fps.

The same kind of thing is needed in a 3D-capable television. It needs data coming from the Blu-ray player alongside the 48fps video stream to tell it a stereo-scopic movie is being delivered and to actively synchronize the 3D glasses so the imagery is displayed properly. A simple data flag and data for 3D sync is all that would be needed.

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

How does the theater use the same screen with 35mm films? Can they put the Z-screen over the lens so that the brightness level stays the same?

The Z-screen is attached to a hinged metal bracket installed on the front of the projector. When a digital 3D movie isn't being shown the Z-screen can be moved out of the way of the lens. Digital projectors have adjustable brightness settings so the changes from 2D to 3D movies aren't so bad.

BTW, the Z-screen is a polarizing filter. But it isn't a passive one. If a movie theater operator wishes to do so, they can install a pair of d-cinema projectors and attach circular polarizer filters and get a similar (or even better) effect. But they'll spend a lot more money doing that.

Setting up silver screens has its own potential problems. They're prone to hot spots. The usual high gain screens in most theaters show off more even levels of brightness. One advantage with Dolby 3D is you can use the same high gain screens with it.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

The input to the TV doesn't need anything faster than 60Hz. The output from the TV is the real hang up.

In digital cinema, both Real-D and Dolby 3D work from "virtual prints" with 48fps material -basically 2 discrete 24fps JPEG2000 video streams. It's the special 3D hardware that does the extra work. Real-D triple flashes every frame of the movie so there is no perceptible flicker or strobing. The virtual print itself is not encoded at 144fps.

The same kind of thing is needed in a 3D-capable television. It needs data coming from the Blu-ray player alongside the 48fps video stream to tell it a stereo-scopic movie is being delivered and to actively synchronize the 3D glasses so the imagery is displayed properly. A simple data flag and data for 3D sync is all that would be needed.

Look at all the issues with HDM due to the percentages of people owning HDTV. They can't release a 3D standard that relies on TV technology that doesn't exist and nobody owns.

Certainly, being able to maximize the quality of the experience with special TVs should be considered in any standard. But, the base standard must rely on acceptable synchronization to shutter glasses without requiring the purchase of a new television.

Gary

[Bobby Henderson]

The problem is synchronization with LCD shutter glasses is going to require people buy entirely new HDTV and maybe even have to replace their existing Blu-ray players (as well as HDMI cables) too.

There really is no practical way at all to graft 3D into the existing, and widely varied level of quality and technologies, of HDTV sets currently sitting in the homes of 30 million+ people. Not even new 120Hz HDTV sets like the one sitting in my living room.

This is why I am very skeptical that home theater 3D will happen anytime soon. I think it will be at least another 5 years or more before home 3D equipment is fully ready and affordable.

Further, I think video games stand a greater chance to deliver full color 3D before Blu-ray will ever do it with movies. With a little ingenuity a game developer could make a Playstation 3 game work in 3D between the game and some LCD shutter glasses connected directly to the console via USB or wireless via Bluetooth. The games are real-time rendered and can be output at a variety of refresh rates. You can't really do that with Blu-ray movies without some serious consequences to video quality.

Home theater 3D sure isn't going to happen overnight. Anyone hoping to have it by Christmas or even Christmas next year can dispense with that thought. We're looking at red/blue anaglyphic style 3D stuff for home theater for at least another few years. On the bright side, by the time it does happen there will be a reasonably decent supply of good quality 3D movies to watch.

[Anthony P]

Of course, the more streams you add, the less BW is available for each stream since there is a limit. There are some BW reduction schemes possible, such as using the difference information for the second stream, along with offset vectors, etc.

I guess that was the question, I don't work in this field and so I don't have any info, but I don't know of such native capabilities in MPEG-2, AVC or VC1, so I found it odd that you said the dual channel method could have PiP as a benefit over the two streams method. Unless something like that is used where the second eye uses a lot less BW the BW demand for two equivalent streams is way too high (i.e. 2x a none 3d movie) so even without the PiP the main video will be a little bit starved.

One also has to take into account having to convert from one 3D format to another in order to be able to drive current 3D-capable displays. Doing this can have some bad consequences on video quality depending on the source and display 3D formats.

not sure what you mean with that. Obviously, if we take as an example, having two videos with no "simplification" and we use the max video then each can only max out at 20 (and let's face it they will both be either high or low at the same time), that would mean that each stream will be much more limited then today (where many have an average above 20 let alone a max).

But except for the obvious real 3D means more content and so more BW and capacity is needed, I don't understand what you mean. If you have two "correct" videos why would there be issues others then ones naturally in the display device from outputting it in different formats? Yes, it might be a headache for chip makers like you, but if one player takes it and outputs it as two 1080P streams over two HDMI cables, if an other player takes the two 1080 24p and outputs it as one 1080 120p to work on the Samy 3D ready TV or colour shifts one blue and the other red to output a normal 1080p24 to work with red/blue glasses...... where does the extra loss exist from the transferring to different output methods?

[Anthony P]

I really have to disagree with that. You get very bad results when you rush something. Home theater technology simply isn't mature enough yet to properly support 3D. Movie theater companies don't need to be convinced to install digital 3D equipment. They're already doing so.

agree, I guess my point was not clear. Gary said that studios should wait for BD to have real 3D before making 3D movies. My point was simply that it would not make sense for studios to wait for the BDA to get its act together. Theatres have added 3D, but if studios where to stop 3D movies until BD is ready do you think the owners that added 3D would be happy? do you think it would make others eager to jump into 3D? So if we agree that studios can't stop 3D at theatres waiting for BD, the next question is what do they do after they are out of the theatres? do you not release the movie for home or do you use red/blue glasses or release on some proprietary format?

[dialog_gvf]

What I said is that there is a risk to the home video revenue if they start to make the big blockbusters in 3D.

And, what about worldwide theater revenues? If the attitude is the movie is a must see in 3D and you can't see it that way, then what?

And, on a flip side, what if Toshiba (always looking for the next anti-Blu idea) comes out with a DVD solution (say two DVD drives) before Blu-ray can deliver one?

Gary

[Anthony P]

What I said is that there is a risk to the home video revenue if they start to make the big blockbusters in 3D.

I guess you are saying my statement was stronger then yours? if so I appologize but it means more or less the same thing and in the previous post that Bobby quoted part of, I did reply why I don't think it is so[/quote]

And, what about worldwide theater revenues? If the attitude is the movie is a must see in 3D and you can't see it that way, then what?

but isn't that the other side of the sword? yes, not all theatres and not all rooms have 3D but if studios think 3D is the future and they want theatres to go that way they need to pump out 3D movies, if they stop now and block busters are no more 3D, what incentive will the theatres that have not upgraded have to do so? what will the other ones that have upgraded feal like? let me ask you a question, let's say by some weird coincidence you are moved to an island, on that island is a small theatre and there is no 3D set-up and you don't have an HT, do you go to the none 3D cinema and watch this movie you really want to see or do you say "I will skip it". In your scenario, like my scenario the person has no choice, it is see the movie in 2D (assuming it is available in 2D) or not.

And, on a flip side, what if Toshiba (always looking for the next anti-Blu idea) comes out with a DVD solution (say two DVD drives) before Blu-ray can deliver one?

Toshiba comes out with a new BD killer every few days, since they threw in the towel there was SUC, SRT, XDE,SD cards, DL.... (not to mention between everyone of them an article why they think BD sucks) what will one more change? do you think any studio is dumb enough to jump on their bandwaggon at this point in time?

I think the BDA needs to be working hard on 3D and making sure BD will have a real 3D solution soon (it will also help to convince people to upgrade from DVD) but studios can't stop 3D until then or they risk losing the momentum that they have built up. To me that is a more realistic issue then someone saying "this new block buster is a movie I really want to buy on BD, but it was real 3D at the theatre and I have to use these god awful red/blue glasses at home so I will skip it"

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I guess you are saying my statement was stronger then yours? if so I appologize but it means more or less the same thing and in the previous post that Bobby quoted part of, I did reply why I don't think it is so

I don't think the studios should wait for Blu-ray to do 3D. I just think they need to consider how much and how soon. Wet the appetite, but don't go crazy until home video standards and international installations are in place.

And, also they should be putting pressure on the BDA to come up with solutions sooner than later. Normally these committees take years to come up with and implement solutions. But, it is a tough nut. Especially since I believe any solution has to be compatible with the displays people already own.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but isn't that the other side of the sword? yes, not all theatres and not all rooms have 3D but if studios think 3D is the future and they want theatres to go that way they need to pump out 3D movies, if they stop now and block busters are no more 3D, what incentive will the theatres that have not upgraded have to do so?

The studios get revenue from domestic, worldwide and home video and sales. What we don't know right now is how revolutionary 3D will be. Is it like multi-channel sound, widescreen, colour or talkies?

If we consider a hypothetical blockbuster A. It comes out and everyone says the only way to see it is in 3D. So, what does that do to worldwide theatrical sales if 3D installations are far less? What happens when it comes out on home video?

Heck, look at Speed Racer lacking lossless. Look how that has poisoned sales despite a spectacular PQ even on BD25. Small things can have a massive effect if they cause a psychological barrier to a sale.

Gary

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I don't understand what you mean. If you have two "correct" videos why would there be issues others then ones naturally in the display device from outputting it in different formats?

The 48fps content on the disc needs to divided into two discrete streams. Inter-frame compression techniques in AVC and VC1 formats would reduce or even flatten the 3D effect if the two camera eyes are encoded into a video single stream. This is not an issue with digital cinema because every movie frame in a JPEG2000 d-cinema file is a completely separate still image. That is not the case for video imagery on Blu-ray.

The two, discrete video channels would also need equal bandwidth. Human vision isn't based on one eye doing most of the work and the other merely enhancing the vision to make it 3D. Sure, there's only so much capacity on a BD-50 and only so much bandwidth per second available. Compression levels for a 48fps 3D Blu-ray will have to be more severe -getting down into levels more average for HD-DVD. But that will be a necessary trade-off to do 3D.

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

And, what about worldwide theater revenues? If the attitude is the movie is a must see in 3D and you can't see it that way, then what?

The Dark Knight had an extraordinary level of business despite only a small fraction of theaters showing the IMAX version. I watched the movie the first time at a 2K D-cinema theater not far from where I live. A few weeks later I was able to check out the IMAX version in Colorado Springs.

If the movie is a really big event, like The Dark Knight was, the movie is going to draw big crowds to all kinds of theaters -even bad movie theaters. Picky viewers like me will go out of their way to see the show in its best available format.

The same thing goes for digital 3D movies. Not every town has a digital 3D equipped theater, but they are getting to be more common. An average to cruddy movie, such as Journey to the Center of the Earth or Fly Me to the Moon will have 3D as being the main draw. For a movie like Beowulf or Avatar crowds are going to be drawn to 2D and 3D theaters based more on the movie itself rather than the 3D component. The same thing goes for how the movie sells on video. Beowulf looks fantastic on Blu-ray and is a generally well done movie. Sure, the 3D version was more cool to watch. But the 2D BD isn't bad at all either.

Going back farther in history, look at big 70mm epic movies like Lawrence of Arabia or 2001. Most people who watched those movies in theaters saw a mere 35mm print, not the higher resolution 70mm version.

I don't think Hollywood is opening a proverbial can of worms by embracing digital 3D. I think it's a good idea.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

The Dark Knight had an extraordinary level of business despite only a small fraction of theaters showing the IMAX version. I watched the movie the first time at a 2K D-cinema theater not far from where I live. A few weeks later I was able to check out the IMAX version in Colorado Springs.

Ironically, The Dark Knight had much lower foreign revenue than would be expected.

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Going back farther in history, look at big 70mm epic movies like Lawrence of Arabia or 2001. Most people who watched those movies in theaters saw a mere 35mm print, not the higher resolution 70mm version.

But 3D is a fundementally different way of presenting a film. I'm not saying it would have the same impact. But, imagine a talkie v. silent version of the same film at the beginning of the sound era.

Gary

[Bobby Henderson]

If the difference is as extreme as you are suggesting then a movie like Beowulf would only be very poorly received on Blu-ray rather than given a 5-star rating and labeled as "reference quality" demo material for home theater setups.

Regarding any poor showing of a Batman sequel in Europe, Batman is a very American thing. Perhaps there is a cultural disconnect happening. Not everything coming from the United States in terms of entertainment is going to be well received elsewhere. After all, just how many "Bollywood" movies from India have done huge business in America? It's usually a big deal when a European film scores big here in the 'States. And the cultural disconnect between the United States and Europe is very narrow. Still the difference is great enough that hits in the US usually don't play well in Europe and vice versa.