Where are we with "real" 3-D on Blu-ray?

[DaViD Boulet]

By "real" I mean full 1080p24 fidelity for dual-channel video (ie, using the secondary video stream in full 1080p24 mode).

It's been discussed over and over, and how players could output the dual-video stream in any number of ways to meet with various 3-D display technologies (dual HDMI output, 120Hz alternating 3-D glasses etc).

Any progress? Any news?

I hear rumors of "720p" 3-D and it makes me sick. Let's not short-change ourselves when we know we can really get full 1080p 3-d

[Anthony P]

none that I heard. I am guessing they are still debating on what to use.

[Bobby Henderson]

My feeling on the subject is a new generation of HDTV monitors, new HDMI connection standards and new Blu-ray players may be needed to make full color 3D in the home work properly.

240Hz televisions must be developed. 240Hz will enable full color 3D on 1080p/24 and 1080p/30 video streams as well as 1080p/60 video games. 240Hz is a common denominator of all those frame rates.

LCD shutter glasses with very fast response times must be developed to work seamlessly with 240Hz TVs. Some type infrared control will be needed to keep the glasses in proper sync with the TV. It may be possible to have sync controlled via Bluetooth. It won't be very good if the LCD shutter glasses have to be hard wired to the TV or Blu-ray player.

[big-bleu]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

By "real" I mean full 1080p24 fidelity for dual-channel video (ie, using the secondary video stream in full 1080p24 mode).

It's been discussed over and over, and how players could output the dual-video stream in any number of ways to meet with various 3-D display technologies (dual HDMI output, 120Hz alternating 3-D glasses etc).

Any progress? Any news?

I hear rumors of "720p" 3-D and it makes me sick. Let's not short-change ourselves when we know we can really get full 1080p 3-d

are the 3d glasses the red and blue the same as 3D Holographic Glasses

[Bobby Henderson]

It's not anaglyphic 3D. Full color 3D on Blu-ray would utilize LCD-based shutter glasses. The left and right lenses would alternate being filled black and then going clear. This would happen very rapidly and in sync with video imagery being displayed on the screen.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

My feeling on the subject is a new generation of HDTV monitors, new HDMI connection standards and new Blu-ray players may be needed to make full color 3D in the home work properly.

240Hz televisions must be developed. 240Hz will enable full color 3D on 1080p/24 and 1080p/30 video streams as well as 1080p/60 video games. 240Hz is a common denominator of all those frame rates.

LCD shutter glasses with very fast response times must be developed to work seamlessly with 240Hz TVs. Some type infrared control will be needed to keep the glasses in proper sync with the TV. It may be possible to have sync controlled via Bluetooth. It won't be very good if the LCD shutter glasses have to be hard wired to the TV or Blu-ray player.

Hardware precedes content. You can't have media until the hardware exists to support it.

The issue would be whether people will be willing to make such a reinvestment in an HDTV and player just for 3D?

And, if 3D is important and downloads can offer it well before Blu-ray (or some derivative), then what happens then?

Gary

[dialog_gvf]

I watched the Journey to the Center of the Earth with the anaglyphic green/magenta glasses. It was a fun one-time gimic, but it destroyed the PQ.

I'm still not convinced that a movie that becomes a huge theatrical hit in 3D would get received well as a poor 3D home offering.

Gary

[Bobby Henderson]

The issue would be whether people will be willing to make such a reinvestment in an HDTV and player just for 3D?

Most people aren't going to get rid of an existing HDTV set and buy a new one just for 3D -especially if the HDTV they already have is fairly new.

Perhaps after a lot of movies have been produced in 3D and are available in special 3D versions on Blu-ray more people may be inclined to upgrade an old TV set. If new gaming consoles yet to be developed take advantage of the same 3D technology that may sweeten the deal. The deal would be sweetened even further if computers could use it. HDTV sets are destined to become multi-purpose displays. In another decade we'll be making video-based telephone calls to our friends and family, using those HDTV sets as the portal. Wouldn't it be great if you could have a video phone call be in 3D?

The folks working on this 3D stuff need to think bigger than merely 3D movies on Blu-ray to market the product.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Hardware precedes content. You can't have media until the hardware exists to support it.

Gary

With all due respect, I think that your chicken-egg order is incorrect. We can certainly have 3-D on Blu-ray before we have the hardware ready to take full advantage. Just like we had 16x9 encoding on DVD before we had affordable 16x9 TVs.

The reason we can do 3-D on blu before hardware is ready is because:

1. using the secondary video channel for the second eye in 1080p24 is fully backwards compatible with all current 2-D players. They would simply ignore the second video stream and play as a normal BD movie. For this reason, 3-D encoded software could be sold long before people even have players to access the 3-D stream.

2. There could be MULTIPLE ways of dealing with the 3-D video. One would not even require any new display technology: Dual-projection through polorized filters using polarized glasses (like IMAX). All you'd need is a BD player with dual-HDMI output that would send each video stream to one of the two outputs. That's straightforward to impliment on the BD player side and not out of bounds for a dedicated projection enthusiast.

3. Software upgrades could handle just about any flavor of packing the two video streams into a single HDMI run depending on the display protocol and LCD shutter glasses. We already have 3-D systems using shutter glasses that run below the 200 Hz. A display able to run at 120 could easily handle 3-D by giving 60Hz to each eye to minimize flicker. Not a problem, and with software updates any BD player that's got the ability to decode the second video signal in full 1080p could be configured to run at any needed custom rate to sync up with LCD glasses.

Get the standard requirements built into BD players for 1080p decoding requirements for the secondary video stream, get them equipped with dual HDMI and downloadable software updating and you're set for the display technology to evolve.

Get it on the disc in dual-channel 1080p. That's the job for today. The means to best take advantage of that can come tomorrow.

[Anthony P]

I watched the Journey to the Center of the Earth with the anaglyphic green/magenta glasses. It was a fun one-time gimic, but it destroyed the PQ

agree, but that is the issue with anaglyphic the colours and detail gets messed up. Think about it, if an object is the same colour as one of the lenses then it is only visible from one eye so reality gets deformed because of the coloured lenses and your brain filters it out (open one eye and close the other - notice the nose in one corner? now change eyes, notice that it is in the other one? now open both and magically your nose is gone).There is no reason that a real 3D will have the same issues. Have you seen 3D in a theatre lately?

I still say the best solution is two (L & R) video streams and let the device do what it wants. That will also solve the dilemma you posted earlier.

with two streams you can show the 2D on any player. you can have a player that color codes the images and superimposes them so that you see it on a regular TV (like Journey to the Center of the Earth) , an other manufacture can build a player that streams to two projectors (like in theatres) an other one can build a player that streams it to a 120hz TV that uses shutter glasses (as mentioned by Bobby) the possibilities are endless because you have the tools to do what you want in the playback device.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Most people aren't going to get rid of an existing HDTV set and buy a new one just for 3D -especially if the HDTV they already have is fairly new.

Perhaps after a lot of movies have been produced in 3D and are available in special 3D versions on Blu-ray more people may be inclined to upgrade an old TV set. If new gaming consoles yet to be developed take advantage of the same 3D technology that may sweeten the deal. The deal would be sweetened even further if computers could use it. HDTV sets are destined to become multi-purpose displays. In another decade we'll be making video-based telephone calls to our friends and family, using those HDTV sets as the portal. Wouldn't it be great if you could have a video phone call be in 3D?

The folks working on this 3D stuff need to think bigger than merely 3D movies on Blu-ray to market the product.

Once you get the dual 1080p streams on Blu-ray, and the player specs to output it over dual HDMI or allow a composite dual-channel video stream over one HDMI, firmware updating can take care of future details about frame rate etc.

that way, Blu-ray can get 3-D full-fidelity 1080p on movie discs now, and then as the larger 3-D market develops with 3-D games etc, firmware update on players will allow that 3-D content to be streamed to the display technology in any way needed.

Even easier, the industry might eventually settle on a streaming as simple as 1080p48 with alternating left/right eye for 24 fps content, and 1080p120 for 3-D 60 Hz content, and then the displays could take that raw feed and deal with it to upconvert to whatever refresh rate is best suited to the display and LCD glasses.

[Bobby Henderson]

We already have 3-D systems using shutter glasses that run below the 200 Hz. A display able to run at 120 could easily handle 3-D by giving 60Hz to each eye to minimize flicker.

Unfortunately 120Hz and 60Hz are not multiples of 24. Movies made in 3D are produced 24fps for each camera eye. The original content would have to be altered with a 3:2 pull down to deliver a 30fps video stream for each eye. I'm also not so sure that double-flashing each frame (60Hz) would be enough to kill flicker. Real-D relies on a triple flash method.

240Hz would be a much better target for the obvious mathematical reasons. Sony's upcoming KDL-52XBR7 Bravia television due to be released in December uses a 240Hz refresh rate.

[Anthony P]

Even easier, the industry might eventually settle on a streaming as simple as 1080p48

the issue is that you can't have different rates, how will the TV take it and turn it into 120Hz (or 240) and synch with the glasses? Now 48 might be reserved for 3D, but if not what would happen? You would want to alternate frames for 3D but not for normal 2D. And even then you might have issues

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

the issue is that you can't have different rates, how will the TV take it and turn it into 120Hz (or 240) and synch with the glasses? Now 48 might be reserved for 3D, but if not what would happen? You would want to alternate frames for 3D but not for normal 2D. And even then you might have issues

That's a firmware question, but HDMI could easily carry a "3-D" flag so that the display device would understand that it's alternating frames for 3-D rather than a normal single-channel video system.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Unfortunately 120Hz and 60Hz are not multiples of 24. Movies made in 3D are produced 24fps for each camera eye. The original content would have to be altered with a 3:2 pull down to deliver a 30fps video stream for each eye. I'm also not so sure that double-flashing each frame (60Hz) would be enough to kill flicker. Real-D relies on a triple flash method.

240Hz would be a much better target for the obvious mathematical reasons. Sony's upcoming KDL-52XBR7 Bravia television due to be released in December uses a 240Hz refresh rate.

If 60Hz displays are commonly used watching material that originates from 24 fps, then why wouldn't 120 work for alternating dual-channel?

I'm not saying that 120 Hz is ideal, or that it doesn't introduce 2-3 judder. My point is that it's a POSSIBLE way to deliver alternating 3-D using current displays that doesn't take a step any farther backwards than watching 24 fps material on current 60Hz displays.

[Anthony P]

If 60Hz displays are commonly used watching material that originates from 24 fps, then why wouldn't 120 work for alternating dual-channel?

I'm not saying that 120 Hz is ideal, or that it doesn't introduce 2-3 judder. My point is that it's a POSSIBLE way to deliver alternating 3-D using current displays that doesn't take a step any farther backwards than watching 24 fps material on current 60Hz displays.

I am guessing that it would be the same with 24p/30i through 60i to a 1080p set. I know you said "well let's change the specs so that HDMI passes a flag. But normal 3:2 to 120 will favour one of the video streams.

An other issue is the complexity in the glasses if it is constantly alternating in a 1:1 fashion then the glasses are simple to build (they just switch eyes at the same rate) but with 3:2 you will have times when it is left-left or right-right so it should not change.

(if I am not mistaken)

[Anthony P]

now that I think about it a bit more, if there is a flag (as you said above) it might not be that bad, you send
l1,r1,l2,r2,l3,r3,l4,r4... (48p)
and then the set turns it into
l1,r1,l1,r1,l1,r1,l2,r2,l2,r2,l3,r3,l3,r3,l3,r3,l4 ,r4,l4,r4 (120p)