"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[DaViD Boulet]

Here's a big question: What does 3D theatrical do to home video sales if those are 2D?

If 3D catches on as a primary presentation (rather than a special one), then the home video is a step down from the theatrical. And that could cost a lot of home sales and/or cause a sudden demand for 3D in the home.

This is why talking about 3D extensions to BD now is important, rather than waiting until it is clear that people have wasted time not dealing with the issue.

Agreed. I don't want to buy 2-D Blu-ray versions of 3-D films. I want to watch 1080p24 3-D at home.

Why can't the combined visual of the 3D image be included as a single video stream on Blu-Ray?

You would have a video track with the "blurry" version for those without glasses that would be 3D with glasses. The 2D version can be on a second disk. Or, the 3D can be sold as a special edition.

Blu-ray disc doesn't allow for 1080p60 encoding (pretty stupid actually... can't believe the BDA didn't think their way ahead on that one). So you'd have to encode the 1080 single-stream image as "1080 interlaced 60Hz" which would be a step-backwards for any native progressive film content though specialized 3-D processors could properly pull it apart into the two signals.

The real solution has already been discussed on this forum several times/threads: use the secondary video stream running 1080p24 (part of the BD spec) for the "other eye angle". Standard 2-D viewers get their primary 1080p24 stream as usual. Then 3-D equipped players could do whatever the user wanted to get the 3-D out of the machine and onto the screen. They could matrix them into a 1080p60 signal for LCD shutter glasses, 1080p120 for the same, or even send the two "eye angles" out a separate HDMI for high-end systems with dual-projection using polarized light (like IMAX). That's the best solution. And one that the BDA needs to get into their spec ASAP.

[Objectivity]

Originally Posted by TheRealBob

I think you might be misunderstanding how this works.

Digital 3D works by showing one image for each eye. The images are projected with polarized light. It's polarized one way for the right-eye image and polarized the other way for the left-eye image. The glasses have lenses with polarization filters, each lens matching the polarization intended for that eye. This lets each eye just see the image intended for it, and the images are slightly different, which lets your brain perceive depth because that's how your normal depth perception works: Two slightly different images come into your two eyes because they are looking from a slightly different angle.

So while if you pull your glasses off you'll see a blurry image, that's because you're no longer separating the two images. If that combined blurry image was put on a Blu-ray, there would be no way to separate it back out into two distinct images.

What they'd need to do would be to include both images, not the combined image. Then we'd need a special TV (which does not currently exist) that could show polarized light to use the same glasses, or we'd have to have shutter glasses that would turn on and off as the images were alternatively shown, or something along those lines.

Note that to get the same effect it would have to show 144 frames per second, since that's what the theater does. The movie is at 24 fps, but each frame is shown in each 1/24 of a second slot three times, alternating between the two frames. That helps maintain the illusion that you're seeing both images at once.

I was thinking of it as a complicated version of the B&W 3-D comics, where the glasses block certain colors based on the lens.

Not the best solution, but what would happen if the image were interlaced instead of projected. You could have the rows alternate between a left and right image. I don't think it would add flicker at that point, at least not one that would be noticable when the glasses were on.

The "only" other step then would be to create a method of having each line of interlaced images coded with a virtual polarization.

In terms of that last part, realize I say that while having no idea what I'm talking about. It just seems that there should be some sort of method to simulate the effect needed to accomplish this.

Didn't one of the insiders mention that a test had been done on a consumer version of U23D and the results where amazing? How was that done?

[DaViD Boulet]

Not the best solution, but what would happen if the image were interlaced instead of projected. You could have the rows alternate between a left and right image. I don't think it would add flicker at that point, at least not one that would be noticable when the glasses were on.

It's aweful. That's already been done with "3-D" DVDs with LCD shutter glasses.

The words "interlaced" and "high definition" should NEVER be used in the same sentence by anyone.



Now, alternating "frames" is a different story. And that would be fine for use with 120HZ LCD displays. But you need at least 1080p48 to do such an encoding, and BD can't do it.

That's why the best option is for each video channel to use its own 1080p24 stream.

Then the *player* can output that any way you want, 1080p48, 1080p60, 1080p120 for LCD shudder glasses or dual-HDMI for poloarized projection.

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Then the *player* can output that any way you want, 1080p48, 1080p60, 1080p120 for LCD shudder glasses or dual-HDMI for poloarized projection.

It should be noted that the current generation of LCD shutter glasses don't work well with LCD displays. They're designed primarily for CRT and DLP displays.

[V2David]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

About as well as her fulfilling her promise to forum members to post a photo shoot with the gifted official leather Blu-ray jacket.
Honestly, when it became apparent that we would not get the promised photo shoot, I Lost all interest in pursuing information on the matter.

So, any insights from me in that regard should be considered a ………..Lost cause.
Sorry.

BOO!! HISS!! Watch out for the smoke monster!!

[OokieSpookie]

I normally hate posts like this, but if possible Penton can you address this complete BS?

Speaking of Universal, we're currently looking at a months-long black hole of Universal, Dreamworks and Paramount's releases, thanks to their belated integration (or re-integration) into the Blu-ray fold. Not only will it be late spring or early summer before we see any of their flicks hit Blu, we're hearing that they might have trouble buying dual-layer 50GB Blu-ray discs to produce them on, because the more settled Blu-ray studios have already purchased the entire 2008 stock—not hard to do, thanks to the limited number of replication sites and lower yields. This means that they'll only have access to 25GB discs, which could mean fewer features and lower-quality video and audio.

http://gizmodo.com/366260/whole-blu-...oody-aftermath

[dialog_gvf]

Not only will it be late spring or early summer before we see any of their flicks hit Blu, we're hearing that they might have trouble buying dual-layer 50GB Blu-ray discs to produce them on, because the more settled Blu-ray studios have already purchased the entire 2008 stock—not hard to do, thanks to the limited number of replication sites and lower yields.

The poster is saying the buzz words, but doesn't have clue one what they mean.

What is replication? It is manufacturing a disc. They make a BD25 or BD50. Take the polycarbonate base (1 mm) stamp on a the data L0 (metal metal punches marks), aluminize (if they are doing BD50 add a separator and L1 layer) then the top layer (0.1 or 0.075 mm) and then the hard coat.

They don't buy a disc, and then do something to put data on it (that would be called DUPLICATION).

Universal's delays have to do with needing the time to author, and line up replication slots. You can bet their first titles will be be HD DVD ports (a la Warner).

Gary

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by OokieSpookie

I normally hate posts like this, but if possible Penton can you address this complete BS?

http://gizmodo.com/366260/whole-blu-...oody-aftermath

I remember that website and I know that some authors from there read our forum…. and this thread in particular.
I suggest they pay attention and heed what Gary has stated above rather than posting statements like “we're hearing that” which smacks of Amir “hearing that” BD50’s were science fiction.

If the author is truly concerned with Uni’s high def format releases, I suggest he bug them to create some new digital masters first before they even think about Blu-ray disc availability for their older titles that they published in the HD DVD format.

[ezcobar411]

Thanks for clarifying that PM

PM, do you know whatever happened to the SCE Insider?

[sj001]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I remember that website and I know that some authors from there read our forum…. and this thread in particular.
I suggest they pay attention and heed what Gary has stated above rather than posting statements like “we're hearing that” which smacks of Amir “hearing that” BD50’s were science fiction.

If the author is truly concerned with Uni’s high def format releases, I suggest he bug them to create some new digital masters first before they even think about Blu-ray disc availability for their older titles that they published in the HD DVD format.

Thanks for that, I really hope that Uni/Para put some effort into optimizing for the Blu-ray format and don't just give us shovelware, that would be very disappointing.

[Sporty]

I generally ignore any articles/new items with the terms "we're hearing that" and "Some people say"

Those are 2 tip offs that the reporter is pushing opinion down your throat and not facts.

[TheRealBob]

Originally Posted by Objectivity

I was thinking of it as a complicated version of the B&W 3-D comics, where the glasses block certain colors based on the lens.

Yes, you can use colored lenses to filter some colors into one eye and other colors into the other eye for that 1950s style of monochrome 3D. They can even sneak in a splash of color now and then on one eye, which your brain will blend in with the other image, although this has to be in limited amounts or the images will diverge.

Personally, I'd find that atrocious. I'd only accept it on old B&W movies where you're not losing too much or as an alternative view on a recent 3D movie where the full-color 2D version is also provided.

Originally Posted by Objectivity

Not the best solution, but what would happen if the image were interlaced instead of projected. You could have the rows alternate between a left and right image. I don't think it would add flicker at that point, at least not one that would be noticable when the glasses were on.

Each image would have gaps in it. Blech. I'd much rather they alternate between full images.

Originally Posted by Objectivity

Didn't one of the insiders mention that a test had been done on a consumer version of U23D and the results where amazing? How was that done?

That sounds vaguely familiar. If anyone knows the details, I'd like to hear them as well.

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by Objectivity

Not the best solution, but what would happen if the image were interlaced instead of projected. You could have the rows alternate between a left and right image. I don't think it would add flicker at that point, at least not one that would be noticable when the glasses were on.

Oh, it adds flicker all right... And it's noticeable with glasses on.

I've seen this attempted when the company I was doing QC for was testing the process for a major studio. When we kept the color palate equal to the master, it put the chances of a "Pokemon" seizure to shame. (I'll admit it was the best 3-D I've ever seen on a home video format, but that was after picking myself up from the floor from the convultions... ) In order to reduce the seizure possibilities, you had to reduce the color palate, and that wasn't an ideal solution.

Also, the director wanted the disc optimized for PC's, and interlaced material doesn't work well with computers.

fitprod

[Polyh3dron]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Here's a big question: What does 3D theatrical do to home video sales if those are 2D?

If 3D catches on as a primary presentation (rather than a special one), then the home video is a step down from the theatrical. And that could cost a lot of home sales and/or cause a sudden demand for 3D in the home.

This is why talking about 3D extensions to BD now is important, rather than waiting until it is clear that people have wasted time not dealing with the issue.

Gary

Well, Blu-ray has the bandwidth and capacity needed to output 2 simultaneous 1080p feeds. They just need to make a player with 2 hdmi outputs and some kind of display device that can deliver them as a 3D picture.

To get all that done would be quite complicated. I don't see it happening myself.

[BillCable]

Could it be done via a single 1080i stream, alternating frames for each lens? I can't imagine why that wouldn't work if you encoded it the right way.

[WickyWoo]

Well, Blu-ray has the bandwidth and capacity needed to output 2 simultaneous 1080p feeds. They just need to make a player with 2 hdmi outputs and some kind of display device that can deliver them as a 3D picture.

No, they don't

They just need to output 1080p60 and have it alternate frames.

[TheRealBob]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

No, they don't

They just need to output 1080p60 and have it alternate frames.

DaViD Boulet has said a couple of times in this thread that Blu-ray doesn't support 1080p60. Is that incorrect?

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by TheRealBob

DaViD Boulet has said a couple of times in this thread that Blu-ray doesn't support 1080p60. Is that incorrect?

You are correct - Blu-ray does not support 1080p60.

[Anthony P]

DaViD Boulet has said a couple of times in this thread that Blu-ray doesn't support 1080p60. Is that incorrect?

on the disk

[WickyWoo]

The actual framerate of each stream is only 1080p30, adhering to spec. The player then combines these outputs to a 1080p60 stream