Blu-ray 3D Discussion Thread

[Anthony P]

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.

I agree that they should put pressure and that the BDA should work hard on it. Let's not forget these are not two distinct groups, the board of the BD has many studios in it. On the other hand I am guessing there is also a lot of technical stuff as well as politics


As for compatible with existing TVs, isn't that in a way impossible? is there a 3D method that is not using colour (which I think we all agree is not a good idea if one wants quality) lenses? There are differences between techs (back in CRT days some used the interlaced feature of the display to make 3D which did not work with digital projectors and sets which are all that you can buy now) and even with in techs (a 120hz or 240hz display can do things a display with less refresh can't) that is why guys like me and David ask for a none display dependent definition. If there can be two correct and distinct video streams then every manufacturer can build a 3D image that works with their system and for any display. If you build something display tech dependent then you will have issues with the past and be limited in the future (like the 3D that used interlace on CRT TVs)

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.

yes let's, obviously I did not get my point across and maybe this will help. It is not that great of a movie and we all whined about it not having lossless and yet when it came out it was the top selling BD and had an extremely high ratio WRT the DVD where it was not #1. My point is that we are all hostages. Let's not kid ourselves if there is a movie we want to watch or buy because of the "story" and it is well done we will buy it. Maybe some will say I won't watch XYZ because the only theatre I can go to does not have 3D and maybe some will say "I would buy XYZ but it is not in 3D on BD" or "I would buy XYZ but it with red/blue glasses on BD" but that would be an extremely small minority. Most people will grumble but will reluctantly watch or buy it.

[Anthony P]

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.

agree, but who said anything about 48p? I am hoping the BD will have two distinct streams on the disk be they in two channels or two streams or something else. I don't think 48p makes sense because there will be backwards compatibility issues, what would happen if I put that 48p disk in my Samsung player (I am assuming my PS3 is more upgradeable), will it be able to tell the decoder that this is a 3D film and it should get rid of every second frame because it is not correct and meant for the second eye? or will the player play it and I would get a blurry image? or will the player have issues because it needs to decode a stream that it was never built to decode.

If we don't care about backwards compatibility there are most likely an infinite amount of ways that 3D can be stored on the disk with some being better then what we can do today.

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.

agree (it will actually be a bit worst then HD DVD, the average could be the same but the max would need to be lower but 3D should make it look richer for anyone not using 2D)

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by 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.

How many people saw it in 3D?

The effect I'm talking about can only be of concern when the vast majority of people see the film in 3D. And (this is critical) the movie is significantly better in the 3D presentation.

If 3D doesn't bring something significant, the whole 3D thing is a gimmic and completely unnecessary and will never catch on in the theater or the home.

Gary

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

As for compatible with existing TVs, isn't that in a way impossible?

If that is so, then the whole point is moot. 3D for the home will never be significant.

By the time any standard exists, the majority of homes will already have their incompatible 2D DTV.

Gary

[Anthony P]

How many people saw it in 3D?

The effect I'm talking about can only be of concern when the vast majority of people see the film in 3D. And (this is critical) the movie is significantly better in the 3D presentation.

If 3D doesn't bring something significant, the whole 3D thing is a gimmic and completely unnecessary and will never catch on in the theater or the home.

you and I might live on these type of boards and be technical savy and now there is XYZ in 3D out there and it is important to try and see it that way, but J6P living in some hick town or some other place where the only theatre(s) they have available show the 2D version.

I turned on the TV a bit earlier today while working on the PC and it was on PBS I have no idea what the show was (but it was either about WB or the brothers themselves), but the part at the start of when I turned it on was when audio was starting off in cinema and they said something like the Warner brothers did not think audio would be about talking but about adding the clinking of the swords and they where trying to convince cinemas to buy audio equipment because they would save money on the piano player in the long run.

A new tech is always a bit gimmicky at first, it needs to become common place before anything serious is done with it and it can't become common place unless people show value.

[Anthony P]

If that is so, then the whole point is moot. 3D for the home will never be significant.

By the time any standard exists, the majority of homes will already have their incompatible 2D DTV.

there are already some out there (Samsung, Mitsubishi are selling 3D ready sets) but do you really think that a 3 year old Plasma or an old CRT, my projector I have at home, my RPTV.... will all be able to do 3D with nothing substantially added in any other form then those tacky red/blue glasses? 3D means having two different images for each eye with a slightly different perspective, colour coded images can be both displayed by one device but they destroy the colour accuracy of the shot as well as adding artefacts (i.e. harder to do 3d for an object that is red or blue since it is more tuned to one of the eyes). So yes, unless you just bought one of those 3D ready sets, that there are glasses that can work with it and there is a player out there that can output it in the format the TV uses, you would most likely need something big for that HDTV of yours unless the output uses red and blue differentiation.

The issue is that can the BDA make a spec for the disk so that the cheap person that does not care much gets a red/blue image at home and use those paper glasses, that the person that bought those 3D ready sets can use the feature and other display devices that will do 3D in other ways do the same? My guess is yes, but only if the content on the disk is not linked to a particular display tech and that the display tech should be the problem of the player manufacturers.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

there are already some out there (Samsung, Mitsubishi are selling 3D ready sets) but do you really think that a 3 year old Plasma or an old CRT, my projector I have at home, my RPTV.... will all be able to do 3D with nothing substantially added in any other form then those tacky red/blue glasses?

Why would a standard incompatible with most TVs necessarily be compatible with those sets?

Remember when they were talking about 1080i/p only being allowed over HDMI and the component people screamed? Almost every set coming out at that point was HDMI compatible.

If a set accepts 1080p/60, then that should be sufficient for a solution. Not necessarily ideal, but at least it should work.

As I've said, by all means provide support for improved solutions. But, expecting almost everyone to buy a new TV is a guaranteed failure, IMHO.

Gary

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but who said anything about 48p? I am hoping the BD will have two distinct streams on the disk be they in two channels or two streams or something else.

I use the 48 frames per second term simply because that is the cumulative total of two 24fps camera eyes. In digital cinema virtual prints, the material really is 48fps in a single video stream. Blu-ray can't really do that because of the kind of video compression methods used.

I'm very skeptical that any new home 3D system for Blu-ray can be made backward compatible with existing HDTV monitors and other pieces of equipment -other than perhaps making the discs so they can work on standard 2D equipment set ups by displaying only one of the two camera eye channels.

Full color 3D HDTV will probably require an entirely new generation of home theater equipment to be developed. This isn't all that different from the generational changes that have been required to deliver 7.1 channel Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD, 1080p/24 video or even HDCP encoding on digital streams. There's always going to be something that requires the customer to buy new equipment. Some of that is just the nature of digital technology constantly changing and improving. Some of it is the game of making money in the electronics industry.

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

How many people saw it in 3D?

I don't know the final totals on how many people saw Beowulf in digital 3D. 40% of its opening weekend gross came from 742 theaters showing it in 3D. The movie opened on 4900 screens. Obviously, the 3D equipped theaters had much larger crowds. That's despite the $2 or $3 surcharge added to the ticket price and viewers having to wear those glasses to watch the movie.

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

If 3D doesn't bring something significant, the whole 3D thing is a gimmic and completely unnecessary and will never catch on in the theater or the home.

It takes quality movies for any new way of showing them to catch on with the public. Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz paved the way for movies to transition from black and white to color. This is Cinerama was the top earning film of 1952 and led to rival widescreen formats like CinemaScope and Todd-AO to be introduced over the next couple of years. Star Wars can be credited with making surround sound popular.

In the past 3D has just never had enough big hit movies to make the concept more commonly used. Too many 3D movies in the 1980s and 1990s were just B-movies and slasher films. Previous film-based 3D systems have had problems. Digital 3D is more dependable. It's going to take some big hits to cement digital 3D as a mainstay alternative for watching movies in theaters. Over the next 2 years some pretty big movie projects will be released in 3D. Hits in 3D will have to accumulate to a large enough level for a "critical mass" to build up enough to make 3D happen in home theater.

[Anthony P]

Remember when they were talking about 1080i/p only being allowed over HDMI and the component people screamed? Almost every set coming out at that point was HDMI compatible.

1080p is only available over HDMI

If a set accepts 1080p/60, then that should be sufficient for a solution. Not necessarily ideal, but at least it should work.

1) 1080p/60 sets are relatively recent, how many people have such sets?
2) 3D is all about having one image in the left eye and a different one in the right one to create the natural stereoscopic image. Even if a 1080p/60 set and input is "enough" will you be able to make sure the left image goes to the left eye and the right one to the right one? will the old set that is not build for this process it correctly?

As I've said, by all means provide support for improved solutions. But, expecting almost everyone to buy a new TV is a guaranteed failure, IMHO.

I did not say everyone should buy a new TV, I said that with most of the TVs out there real 3D would be impossible. Unless it is crappy red/blue 70's paper glasses, 3D would require something more then what people have at home now. If the spec is designed correctly then a manufacturer would be able to build a player that works ythat offers the movie in that way and other players could offer the better capabilities available on 3D ready sets or new display techs not available yet. The benefit if it is done correctly is that someone with nothing (not enough paper glasses) can watch a 2D version of the movie, then later (when a smaller number is there) watch it with the red blue glasses then later when he upgrades his player and TV he can use the better none destructive technique, all the time using the same disk.

[Anthony P]

I'm very skeptical that any new home 3D system for Blu-ray can be made backward compatible with existing HDTV monitors and other pieces of equipment -other than perhaps making the discs so they can work on standard 2D equipment set ups by displaying only one of the two camera eye channels.

exactly, but not only that. Forget digital cinema virtual prints, the minute you have 2 streams (like old film 3D where you had 2 films playing at the same time) the options are endless.
1) you can show, as you said, only one of the video streams (2D): compatible with all TVs and all situations
2) You can easily create a an algorithm and player that takes the two video streams and colour codes them (one red and the other blue) and then mixes them at 50% transparency to create the red/blue type of system coming out of the player: works with all TVs but you need enough glasses for all
3) you can easily make a player that shuffles (frame from A, then B, then A then B...) to make a 48p assuming that is what your display and glasses need as input (or a 60i or anything else)
4) you can easily shuffle the rows of pixels if i is needed
5) you can easily send out both streams for devices that want both 24p separately or if it goes to two separate devices.

Full color 3D HDTV will probably require an entirely new generation of home theater equipment to be developed.

agree, which is why I think it needs to be device independent. Which is why I think it needs two streams on the disk. At worst on existing BD players all that it will require is a FW upgrade to have “3D” in the BD-J, the same way that 1.1 or 2.0 BD titles playing on 1.0 players know that they don’t support PiP or live so the menu does not show those options, then every existing BD player becomes automatically a player that plays the 2D version of the 3D movie (i.e. #1 above). If the existing BD player has the power to decode and combine the images and the manufacture wants then a FW upgrade can use that extra power (but it needs to be able to decode two 1080p streams) and play back a red/blue image (#2) obviously anything else (#3+) will almost obviously require an upgrade in the home of display or player. But then again it becomes a choice and the user who bought the film does not need to re-buy it.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

1080p is only available over HDMI

It can also go over VGA.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

1) 1080p/60 sets are relatively recent, how many people have such sets?

A lot more than have something that doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

2) 3D is all about having one image in the left eye and a different one in the right one to create the natural stereoscopic image. Even if a 1080p/60 set and input is "enough" will you be able to make sure the left image goes to the left eye and the right one to the right one? will the old set that is not build for this process it correctly?

A set taking 1080p/60 input would display it 60fps (or some multiple). The frames would need to alternate between the eyes, and synchronize in some way with shutter glasses.

The best way, of course, is for the set to output a signal. But, another possibility is some aftermarket device that uses a small detector to see a portion of the screen where a synchronization water mark would be displayed. That would go to a box (say the 3D Blu-ray player) that would emit a synchronization signal for the glasses.

Gary

[Anthony P]

It can also go over VGA.

does BD spec allow that? then again I don't know of any player that has VGA

A set taking 1080p/60 input would display it 60fps (or some multiple). The frames would need to alternate between the eyes, and synchronize in some way with shutter glasses.

I don't know much and don't think anyone has done any study on what happens in all TVs that accept 1080p60 and are not 3D ready, but I do know that a few sets don't do 1:1 mapping correctly (i.e. the pixels are not sent out correctly and the image is in effect reprocessed). So your scheme won't work well (and let's not forget colour accuracy). If anything a better solution would be to use an audio watermark if you want to do something right, but will the display be 100% accurate in that way? In the end if you have to pay several hundreds of extra dollars to buy aftermarket devices to make it work unreliably, aren't you better off just buying a new 3D TV?

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

does BD spec allow that? then again I don't know of any player that has VGA

PCs do. But, I don't know if they allow output via VGA either.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

In the end if you have to pay several hundreds of extra dollars to buy aftermarket devices to make it work unreliably, aren't you better off just buying a new 3D TV?

Assuming it works unreliably? Sure. But, I would suggest assuming it will be and not even trying would be pretty foolish.

Let's for the consider the idea of 3D requires a new TV and a new BD player, neither of which are available today. So, why should anyone buy anything this Xmas? Should we promote the idea that new owners could be disappointed they didn't wait?

Gary

[Anthony P]

Assuming it works unreliably? Sure. But, I would suggest assuming it will be and not even trying would be pretty foolish.

because (assuming you don’t have a 3d ready set) you did not buy that TV or player assuming it will do 3d. As a general answer, there are so few sets that might work that the only realist answer is no.

You gave your idea (colour code a few pixels for synch), I pointed out that many sets do some kind of manipulation and so that won’t work on all of the 1080p60 sets, but let’s assume it does work, what happens (since your glasses must have a camera to get that visual cue) if your head is in motion (so needs to find the area on the film) or tilted in such a way that it can’t find that corner (because I would guess you would want those pixels to be relatively discreet?

That is why I said an audio cue might be better, pink noise will not affect the presentation and would be hard to miss. But even that might not work because it is not in the set, all you need is to be a fraction of a second off in synch for things to be messed up. Think what will happen if the video decoding plus cables make it so that you are off for 1/60 sec? Left becomes right and right becomes left and the image is messed up (if you have a movie that uses red/blu glasses try it with the glasses flipped so they are on the wrong eye) but it does not need to be 1/60 what if it is 1/120 off, now each eye has both frames.

So yes I think the probability of having issues with what you envisions is real high. I also never said don’t try it (assuming someone makes a player with a real 3d solution for such TVs), but I won’t pretend that someone can count on this solution and should assume it will work.

Let's for the consider the idea of 3D requires a new TV and a new BD player, neither of which are available today. So, why should anyone buy anything this Xmas?

that would be nuts, do you know when real 3D will come to BD? Why should anyone buy a BD or TV today (even if we don’t consider 3D) they will be able to buy a cheaper and better one next year, why buy a PC evcery 6 months they get better at the same price… I have had 2 years of high quality movie watching with my BD players, and who knows if there will be a 3rd or 4th before real 3D makes its appearene, if you wait you lose. And with the way the market is lately that money won’t be saved by investing it, so might as well enjoy it.

Should we promote the idea that new owners could be disappointed they didn't wait?

I think people should be realistic. Did it help people that where convinced “Transformers will never be on BD so I will get HD DVD” or “Toshiba will always support HD DVD so there is no risk” or…..

Also unrealistic guarantees are when you get people Poed, “I was told component is the best and bought this component only TV”

[Aerodude73]

Blu-ray Films Coming Out In 3D

(found this info on a real good movie site - www.darkhorizons.com -
By Garth Franklin - Wednesday, November 26th 2008 12:26am)

Despite Jeffrey Katzenberg's wild ambitions, the fact is until 3D movies can be projected without inducing eye strain, headaches, or the need for special glasses then it won't take over as the 'next big thing'.

Nevertheless the technology is on the way and Tech-On reports that Japan's Panasonic Corporation (formerly known as as Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.) has submitted a proposal to the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) to create a "Blu-ray Disc standard to store three-dimensional imagery formed of left-/right-eye two-channel full-High Definition images (1920x1080 pixels)."

The move would also include a "HDMI standard capable of transmitting 3D imagery" though thankfully not another hardware standard (no HDMI 1.4, whew).

The main idea behind the move is a good one - to avoid a futile standards war (ala Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD) and to prevent a patent conflict related to 3D imagery standards (ie. stop a monopoly dominating the market).

The very good news is the proposal makes clear that the technologies proposed all utilize existing standard technology - so no need for a swanky new TV set or player.

The BDA hopes to begin formal discussion on the standard proposal before the end of 2008, with commercial adoption probably in 2010.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by aerodude73

Nevertheless the technology is on the way and Tech-On reports that Japan's Panasonic Corporation (formerly known as as Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.) has submitted a proposal to the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) to create a "Blu-ray Disc standard to store three-dimensional imagery formed of left-/right-eye two-channel full-High Definition images (1920x1080 pixels)."

According to this site's news page, they're stored on disc as 1080i60 And it will still only output 1080p24 - so what happens if and when they make a 3D film/tv programme at something other than that?

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

According to this site's news page, they're stored on disc as 1080i60 And it will still only output 1080p24 - so what happens if and when they make a 3D film/tv programme at something other than that?

We don't know the details of how they can make it work. But:

1) Most films are shot at 24fps, which translates to 1080p24. Most video programs are shot at 1080i/p 25/30. Storing them at 1080i50/60 preserves the 1080p25/30 playback rate.

2) The proposed spec states that ONE image is the base image while the other will be encoded based on the first one; if the right image is the base, then the left image will only be encoded with data that defers from the right image. Since the demo that Panny produced WORKS (according to industry people who were lucky enough to experience it) including using footage of the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, applying this to film and video footage would work fine.

3) You'd definitely need a new 3D BD player, a new HDMI cable (Panasonic is proposing a new spec), and a 3D capable player. Based on the Tech-On's reporting, it appears that the studios need only to replicate ONE version of the movie/program and the player will take over the decoding.


fuad

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

2) The proposed spec states that ONE image is the base image while the other will be encoded based on the first one; if the right image is the base, then the left image will only be encoded with data that defers from the right image. Since the demo that Panny produced WORKS (according to industry people who were lucky enough to experience it) including using footage of the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, applying this to film and video footage would work fine.

It won't work as well as storing 2 or more images totally seperately.

fuad

I don't understand what you mean by this.

[LifeOfAPirate13]

It would be interesting to see something like this, im intrigued by it I would also wanna see how it looks though.

[Static]

I hope they make it where we can split the two sets of images and send them to two projectors so we can use the polarizing method, thats the one I prefer. I've got a bad feeling this wont come out right and it will tarnish 3d for years.... hope not though.