Blu-ray 3D Discussion Thread

[Jimmy Smith]

This forum seems to be filled with 3-D haters and while reading this forum I have read some shockingly ignorant statements about 3-D and the new standard that is hitting Blu-ray next year. I hope I can clear up misconceptions and misstatements once and for all

Myth #1 – 3-D on Blu-ray will bit starve discs and hurt quality

This assumption is based on the faulty assumption that bit rates = quality. For example King Kong on Blu-ray is a reference quality disc was 200 minutes long and used 37 gigabytes (minus extras) and looked absolutely perfect. Gladiator on the other hand is 171 minutes long and uses 40 gigabytes. If bit rates equal quality then Gladiator should look better then King Kong but anyone who watched both these movies on Blu-ray knows the Gladiator disappointed most in terms of quality. How is this? Truth is with VC-1 and AVC codec’s are quite efficient and can fit excellent sharp HD video at low bit rates. Troy the Directors Cut featured a 194 minute movie plus an hour of SD extras at under 30 gigs (limited for HD-DVD) and it wasn’t reference quality but it looked and sounded very good. It was a fine example of high definition in both video and audio that was far beyond many more bit sucking movies out there. Movie studios typically only use high bit rates to save money on the transfer. Better quality at lower bit rates requires more work. Simply cranking up the bit rate is a lazy way to transfer it. They also do this to justify using more discs. Since discs are made of cheap material studios feel the need to use more discs then necessary to give a set more perceived value. How does that relate to 3-D? 3-D on Blu-ray is actually quite efficient. It works by synchronizing two slightly different 1080p video streams on top of each other and uses glasses to filter them out to each eye creating the 3-D effect. One left eye stream that is identical to the 2-D version of the movie and a right eye stream using the difference between the streams. This gives 3-D discs backwards compatibility by feeding the left eye stream to players and televisions incapable of 3-D. This saves a lot of space by eliminating the need encode two versions of the movie as current anaglyph 3-D releases do. It is true that 3-D versions do take up more space but not enough more space to affect quality. The 3-D affect will add an average about 50% more data. This depends on how different the left eye and right eye streams are. Depending on the amount of depth in the screen it can take up as little as 20% more data or over 75% in other shots but should average about 50% higher data rate. If HD-DVD had won the format war and we were limited to 30 gigs this might limit quality however thankfully HD-DVD is gone and on Blu-ray BD-50s have more then enough space. BD-50s can easily fit movies longer then 4 hours of 2-D HD video with lossless audio without compromising quality so a 3-D Blu-ray should be able to handle any movie shorter then 3 hours. At the moment all 3-D movies are shorter then 161 minutes (Avatar is the longest 3-D movie ever made) so it’s hard to think of any reason 3-D would compromise quality. If a 3-D disc features a bad transfer it will be the result of lazy, cheap, or bad studio control not the result of 3-D bit starving the image.

Myth #2 – 3-D will compete against, confuse, or stunt the growth of the Blu-ray format

3-D Blu-ray is still Blu-ray. 3-D Blu-ray uses the same discs, same codec’s (MVC is just a variation of the common AVC codec), and is compatible with all players that play the good old 2-D Blu-rays we use today. It is not a new format. Blu-ray and DVD are clearly incompatible technologies. DVDs couldn’t play Blu-ray minus a combo solution. 3-D Blu-rays play on any Blu-ray player (in 2-D). In reality 3-D can only help the Blu-ray format grow. Think of it as a new feature similar to the Profile 1.1 or 2.0 improvements Blu-ray has added over the years. Since 3-D is entirely optional I can’t imagine the fact that Blu-ray does 3-D turn anyone off to the format once it’s explained to them that a click of a button can turn the feature off. However for 3-D fans who are still stuck with DVD Blu-rays 3-D can push Blu-ray over. Some impressed with Avatar or any other impressive high quality 3-D movies might be more willing to ship to Blu-ray if they believe it’s the only way to simulate the high quality 3-D experience. 3-D is just another new feature. Something new that Blu-ray can do. It only adds to Blu-rays resume as the most impressive way to watch movies at home. At the very worst 3-D won’t hurt Blu-ray or help it and will very likely help it. This is a no lose scenario.

Myth # 3 – All 3-D is the same

Typically some skeptical of 3-D will point out to a previous home video 3-D that has been horrendous. Typically they will point out that all current 3-D Blu-rays based on anaglyph. We will typically see a post about how The Polar Express, Coroline, or Journey to the Center of the Earth looked awful on Blu-ray and thus 3-D on Blu-ray is a waste. This is important to point out 3-Ds biggest hurdle. That’s its past mistakes. Just about all home video 3-D from the past has been awful. It will take some work to explain to people that previous examples of home video 3-D are not representative of the current 3-D spec. Anaglyph 3-D works by simply encoding a single tinted video stream and use different color visors for each eye to filter out certain elements to get a 3-D effect. This process was used in the theatres back in the 1950s and was larely rejected. This is because it severally restricts viewing angles, mutes the colors, creates nasty ghosting, severely reduces the focus and all around looks crappy. New RealD and future 3-D Blu-ray players use a completely different process by sending full color streams separately to each eye for a far superior picture. Beyond just comparisons to anaglyph they will point out full color 3-D movies that have been poorly used. Many filmmakers seem to use 3-D as a gimmick to market otherwise bad movies. They have also used 3-D to attack the audience showing things at there faces and having an annoying “Look at me I’m 3-D” attitude. This is fine for theme park rides or porno but is hardly an example of serious filmmaking. However this is not the fault of 3-D itself but filmmakers who don’t understand how to use the technology. I suggest looking at Up and Avatar as examples. These movies use 3-D with great maturity. Never once does anything fly at the audiences face or pop out in an obnoxious way. 3-D simply is used to add depth to the movie and show the movies environment in a new light. Both are also great movies no matter how many dimensions they have. 3-D when used right has a great way to enhance the movies visuals and give the movie a real world feel that 2-D movies can’t offer.

Myth #4 – 3-D is alienating because not all people can see 3-D

It is true that 4% of the population can’t see 3-D video in any form and many more have some difficulty. 3-D requires two fully functioning eyes in order to get the proper 3-D effect. Many have difficulty focusing both eyes together and thus don’t get the proper 3-D effect. I feel for people who have an eye condition (as my own mother is one of those unlucky few). However I don’t see why that’s any reason not to push forward with 3-D. Color movies discriminated against the color-blind. Sound discriminated against the deaf. Moving picture discriminates against the blind. Where does it end? Why should all those who can see 3-D have to lose a great new feature just to be fair? Life isn’t fair unfortunately. Color still succeeded despite the color-blind so 3-D can still succeed despite its lack of 100% universal use.

Myth #5 – 3-D is being forced on you

The way some hysterical individuals speak they act like all 2-D Blu-rays will all stop working the minute the new 3-D technology is introduced. 3-D is not being introduced to replace 2-D Blu-ray or 2-D viewing. If you don’t like 3-D you don’t have to buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy a new television or player. Even if you have all the equipment to play 3-D and still don’t want to watch it that way you will still be able to turn off 3-D with the push of a button. Why on earth do some people just because they have no interest in this feature hate on people who do and try to ruin there excitement. They even attack the genres 3-D movies as childrens movies ignoring the many 3-D movies that are geared for adults only (My Bloody Valentine) or great for people of all ages (Up, Avatar). It’s really pathetic frankly not to mention childish.

[DaViD Boulet]

Any news?

By "real" 3-D I mean using the two video streams (primary and secondary) each running in full 1080p24. 3-D equipped players could read the second video stream and handle it in any way a user desires (alternating for LCD glasses or via dual HDMI output for external device or polarized dual projection).

I had heard that "discussions" were taking place and that Pioneer wanted in on the action. Anyone have any scoop?

[JadedRaverLA]

TDVision's system (initially on PC only, though they are trying to get SOC maker's to license their tech) is pretty much ready, with their initial batch of titles coming late this year.

As for an "official" BD 3d spec, I'm waiting as anxiously as you. There's a lot of different companies, and a lot of different implementations to consider, though, Then there's companies that aren't doing much of ANYTHING in the way of 3D... and let's just say a couple of those companies are "pretty big" within the BDA. So I'm not holding my breath.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Any news?

By "real" 3-D I mean using the two video streams (primary and secondary) each running in full 1080p24.

That's not real 3D, that's only stereoscopic Real 3d wouldn't just have 2 separate images. For real 3d you'd have everything encoded in proper 3d space, a bit like voxels, or sort of like how 3d games are stored internally using polygons with points in x,y,z space before being rendered to a 2d screen.

[mugen302005]

what was that? i just want a simple answer. They are saying the first blus released of the film journey to the center of the earth 3D were to bring the lenses with them. Does it mean I can recall the experience I had while watching this 3D movie at the theater using my current set (ps3 + HDTV 1080i) with those glasses to play the movie?

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by mugen302005

what was that? i just want a simple answer. They are saying the first blus released of the film journey to the center of the earth 3D were to bring the lenses with them. Does it mean I can recall the experience I had while watching this 3D movie at the theater using my current set (ps3 + HDTV 1080i) with those glasses to play the movie?

See this thread:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=64045

I think that movie will be released with video encoded using the anaglyph method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_image). But in the above thread they mention the glasses look orange rather than the usual red+blue/cyan glasses. It should work okay using your HDTV I'd think.

This won't be as good a method as if each left + right eye image was sent separately like the OP is asking for.

I don't know why they currently don't also do encodes using the primary stream for the left & secondary video stream for the right. Perhaps it might be good if there was a new Blu-ray profile (Profile 4.0 - 3D and more! ).

[welwynnick]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

That's not real 3D, that's only stereoscopic Real 3d wouldn't just have 2 separate images. For real 3d you'd have everything encoded in proper 3d space, a bit like voxels, or sort of like how 3d games are stored internally using polygons with points in x,y,z space before being rendered to a 2d screen.

I think when people say 3D, they almost invariably mean steroscopic.

While animations may be produced in 3D, I'm sure that's not how they are captured and processed. Handling films in stereo will be a challenge in itself, but doing it in "real" 3D wouldn't be feasible.

More than that, I don't think it would be necessary. All the required information for viewing can be captured and replayed in stereo. What it won't do is user-selectable viewing angles, and I expect that is unrealistic.

More still, live movies shot on film will only ever be steroscopic. That covers most films, and my hat says that won't change in my lifetime.

What left is stereoscopic 3D films, and I'm sure they would give everyone all the 3D experience they could hope for.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by welwynnick

I think when people say 3D, they almost invariably mean steroscopic.

While animations may be produced in 3D, I'm sure that's not how they are captured and processed. Handling films in stereo will be a challenge in itself, but doing it in "real" 3D wouldn't be feasible.

More than that, I don't think it would be necessary. All the required information for viewing can be captured and replayed in stereo. What it won't do is user-selectable viewing angles, and I expect that is unrealistic.

More still, live movies shot on film will only ever be steroscopic. That covers most films, and my hat says that won't change in my lifetime.

What left is stereoscopic 3D films, and I'm sure they would give everyone all the 3D experience they could hope for.

True, but I thought there were some capture/display technologies that allowed multiple viewpoints and TVs where you could change your viewpoint by moving your head slightly as well as it giving a different image to each eye. Think how many cameras were used for some scenes in the matrix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_time (122 cameras? - mostly still?) Imagine what you could do with just 6 moving cameras or a video camera with 6 lenses (you could use an even lower number like 4 cameras/lenses), and use interpolation like in The Matrix to create new frames at positions in-between the real ones. It would be a lot easier with 3d computer animation (or 3d motion capture), and you are correct the viewer could select/control their own viewpoint or with right display technology just move a bit for a slightly different viewpoint (as well as each eye getting a different image).

[DaViD Boulet]

I'm talking about BD being able to deliver sterescopic 3D... like all the 3D movies ever made.

Obvious... so I thought!

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

I'm talking about BD being able to deliver sterescopic 3D... like all the 3D movies ever made.

Obvious... so I thought!

Except that the title of the thread says REAL 3D in capital letters and the original post said "real" 3D too

See this http://wg11.sc29.org/News/w9560.pdf

They're talking about adding REAL 3d (but low polygon) for mobile phones using mpeg (static though). They're talking about broadcasting multi-viewpoint 3d to HDTVs. So when your mobile phone can display real 3d and broadcasters can transmit multi-viewpoint 3d, and some HDTVs themselves can display it in that form, but Blu-ray can't hold it, won't it seem a bit out of date? If we're going for new standards/a new profile, why not make it capable of storing/displaying things that are already available or are currently being worked on and will be available in the near future?

Quote from the article:

It is anticipated that while multiview displays may be able to show a relatively
large number of views to a user, for efficiency reasons only a lower number of views
would typically be transmitted, along with additional scene depth information. At the
receiver side, the views to be displayed would then be generated from the transmitted
views and associated depth information.

Also see this article:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/wojciech/3DTV/3DTV.pdf

They're using an array of 16 cameras and 16 projectors for 3d display with multiple viewpoints without the need for "3d" glasses.

[DaViD Boulet]

Except that the title of the thread says REAL 3D in capital letters and the original post said "real" 3D too.

Well, "Real" as opposed to the compromise of red/blue glasses which don't allow a full fidelity picture for either eye channel.

[Bobby Henderson]

Current HDTV monitors just are not yet up to snuff for displaying stereoscopic 3D content. A number of technological hurdles must be overcome first -with refresh rate and capability to sync LCD shutter glasses being the main issues.

Blu-ray is geared toward the 1080p/24 format. New LCD-TVs are going along with that, but at an uneven 120Hz / 5:5 pull down. If they had gone a little higher (144Hz) the 3D thing would be more do-able. The Real-D format in movie theaters runs at 144Hz -which triple-flashes each frame.

The Blu-ray format itself even has problems for stereo 3D content. The video content in D-Cinema theaters isn't 24fps anymore. It's 48fps. You either must double the level of data bandwidth or double the severity of lossy video data compression or make various trade offs with compression and bandwidth. Blu-ray has only so much data bandwidth and disc capacity to spare.

What's worse is the MPEG-4 AVC and Microsoft VC-1 formats depend greatly on inter-frame compression. Stereo 3D needs 48fps imagery with each alternating frame being a separate, discrete image. A bunch of inter-frame compression techniques may do a lot to destroy the 3D effect. Digital cinema does not have that problem since Motion JPEG2000 "virtual prints" have each movie frame stored as an absolutely separate image with minimal levels of data compression.

I'm pretty skeptical about full color 3D coming to home theaters any time soon. Too much has to happen with changes to Blu-ray players and HDTV sets to make it feasible.

I'm also skeptical about Hollywood studios supplying full color 3D content to home theaters. They may be happy with charging a premium for "digital 3D" in movie theaters and then just throwing out a funky anaglyphic version on home video.

[Anthony P]

I think it was kjack (or PM) but in one of their insider threads, BD is working on 3D specs. I am guessing, like everything, there is a bit of politics to get through. BUt I think it is on the way and I hope it is done right (i.e. some form of “real 3D”)

[koshien]

Read this:

http://www.play3-live.com/news-ps3-f...n-8435-p2.html

and this:

"TDVision is pushing to break the vicious cycle that stops the content creators to adopt a 3D encoding format due to the lack of hardware support by:
- Being an active part of the standardization process
- Entering discussions and negotiations with different studios like MagicPlay
- Enabling practically every existing PC for 3D playback with a simple, free download
- Support of all the existing 3D displays out there in the market

The feasibility of updating the PS3 and Blu-ray 2.0 players has been analyzed and validated internally, so technically speaking we can do it immediately if we get clearance to modify the low level firmware. The only thing that is a challenge here are the business agreements, not the technical skills. To "conform" the format for a specific 3D ready display is simply a very basic pixel addressing that can be done with a simple pointer when writing the frame buffer right after the image has been decoded, there's nothing to it. It may seem complicated for somebody that is not expert low level coding but it's extremely simple thing to do when having the right low level programming access.

There are two kinds of standards:
- Written Standard
- Standard de-facto

Most of the standards de-facto, started by being adopted by companies, users and people before there was a written standard. Content is ready, displays are ready and we do not see any reason why this shouldn't happen today. Buy a Blu-ray and download the free software, get any 3D Ready Mitsubishi or Samsung display at Wal-Mart (In case you don't know people are buying it and more than 2 million people have purchased one) and you're ready, why would that be aggravating? In order to see in 3D is clear that you need a 3D-Ready TV. Several manufacturers are working on that like Mitsubishi, Samsung, ViewSonic, and even Sony, and content encoded with our TDVCodec can drive ANY 3D display. It's clear that if you do not buy a 3D TV you won't be able to see in 3D, oh, wait, our Format not only plays back the full HD version in 2D but it can also playback the same Blu-ray disk in 3D anaglyph when using a 2D monitor!... We see the interest not only of one company but many to use our TDVCodec and just so you know, MagicPlay is not the only one, but we can not disclose any names by now.

TDVision has the PC playback ready now. The update for some existing Blu-ray players is 100% feasible, is in our roadmap and it's going to happen within the near future.
The frames per second and the refresh rates are two different things, the content is encoded at 24fps for each eye and the display is refreshing at 120Hz or 60Hz per eye, there's no flickering, have you ever tried one?, we would like to invite you to our demo room to see it working, we have it running on an off-the-shelf Laptop connected to an off-the-shelf Samsung TV we got at Fry's with off-the-shelf online acquired shutter glasses with our free download on it. Works, doesn't flicker, great 3D.

The number of Blu-ray units is increasing every day, the PCs shipped with Blu-ray players is almost mandatory now so this is only going to allow more users to be capable to watch 3D content with a simple free download.

When more and more content is encoded with our system, and as we have been able to prove so far, the benefit for the user of having the freedom of choice to drive any 3D display without adding or having to pay for any additional hardware is clear and has been demonstrated in several shows by now where thousands have been able to see it working.

Our mission is to provide the users with the best 3D experience while providing full compatibility with existing 2D infrastructures. We are ready now.

Regards,

TDVision's CTO "

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Any news?

By "real" 3-D I mean using the two video streams (primary and secondary) each running in full 1080p24. 3-D equipped players could read the second video stream and handle it in any way a user desires (alternating for LCD glasses or via dual HDMI output for external device or polarized dual projection).

I had heard that "discussions" were taking place and that Pioneer wanted in on the action. Anyone have any scoop?

There are various committees working on things.

I wonder if the studios realize they are risking the golden goose? They are rushing head on into mainstream 3D presentations (e.g. all future Dreamworks Animation releases, the Star Wars release Mark N, and Avatar) but a key component of their revenue (home video) is currently incapable of presenting the intended original presentations.

While theater owners may rejoice at a newfound advantage of home theater, if big title movies stop selling well on home video because they are mere 2D (or crappy 3D) and people are waiting for the "real" 3D version, then what?

Gary

[Bobby Henderson]

One problem is major feature films do not exist at all without commercial movie theaters legitimizing them when they are released. Without the commercial movie theaters you have absolutely nothing but stupid, crappy made for TV fare. Commercial movie theaters need to have some ways to clearly differentiate themselves from what people can view in their homes. The continued success of the movie industry really depends on that. The movie industry is more than just home video.

Commercial movie theaters are capitalizing on their advantage to install hardware that John Q. Public simply doesn't have the wallet to afford in his "home theater." That especially goes for full color 3D. Who is going to spend $20K or $30K on an enterprise RAID-based D-cinema server if Hollywood movie studios would provide the content to play on it. Let's not leave out that D-cinema projector that costs more than a Porsche. Let's also not leave out the Real-D or Dolby 3D setup that adds another 20K to 30K to the equation.

The Dark Knight is going to sell VERY WELL on Blu-ray regardless of absolutely no one having IMAX projection quality in their living room. When James Cameron's Avatar arrives on Blu-ray or when Monsters Vs. Aliens arrives on Blu-ray most home viewers will just be happy to see the 2D version in their living room. The full color, digital 3D version will be exclusive to commercial movie theaters.

[DaViD Boulet]

What's worse is the MPEG-4 AVC and Microsoft VC-1 formats depend greatly on inter-frame compression. Stereo 3D needs 48fps imagery with each alternating frame being a separate, discrete image. A bunch of inter-frame compression techniques may do a lot to destroy the 3D effect. Digital cinema does not have that problem since Motion JPEG2000 "virtual prints" have each movie frame stored as an absolutely separate image with minimal levels of data compression.

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.).

[Anthony P]

I wonder if the studios realize they are risking the golden goose? They are rushing head on into mainstream 3D presentations (e.g. all future Dreamworks Animation releases, the Star Wars release Mark N, and Avatar) but a key component of their revenue (home video) is currently incapable of presenting the intended original presentations.

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

[Anthony P]

One problem is major feature films do not exist at all without commercial movie theaters legitimizing them when they are released. Without the commercial movie theaters you have absolutely nothing but stupid, crappy made for TV fare. Commercial movie theaters need to have some ways to clearly differentiate themselves from what people can view in their homes. The continued success of the movie industry really depends on that. The movie industry is more than just home video.

I disagree, yes theatres are nice and yes you can't get the exact same experience at home (watching a comedy by yourself at home is not as much fun as watching it in a crowed) but even though I would not want to see theatres disappear nothing makes them mandatory. Yes most good movies make it to the theatres and most bad ones go strait to DVD, but except for some exceptions most of them where movies made for theatres that after filmed where not thought good enough to make it there.

[Anthony P]

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.).

I still think that is most likely the best way, but what I think is important is
1) it has to be display independent: we all bought red/blue glasses for those kinds of movies, many of us bought that 3D boxes/glasses that only worked with CRT and not our digital displays, some displays( like Samsungs) are built for a particular type of 3D....
2) it has to be backwards compatible: let's face it there will always be older BD players and people with displays that might not be able to do 3D (the second part is less important since red/blue works with all displays
3) we should not lose what is there today: what I mean is that I want this to be done with he means that affects audio or video quality the least.