Ask questions to Sigma Designs insider "kjack"

[Ian_S]

Thanks Keith,

Presumably HDMI 1.3 devices would need the HDMI chip in use to be able to be firmware updateable to recognise the new video patterns?

Do you know if many players are likely to carry dual HDMI outs and do the Sigma solutions support that?

[kjack]

The BD decoder chip handles all that, HDMI is basically just a physical interface.

But, it is unlikely that a firmware upgrade for most standalone players could be done that takes 3D BD and converts it to side/side or top/bottom to drive the HDMI 1.3 output. Too much processing needed to do the L/R to side/side or top/bottom conversion.

What has everyone excited about 3D over HDMI 1.3 is the ability to passthrough side/side or top/bottom 3D sources to the 3DTV without needing a new box.

By the way, most of the 3D solutions are heavily patented, so will require licensing...

[kjack]

Originally Posted by Ian_S

Do you know if many players are likely to carry dual HDMI outs and do the Sigma solutions support that?

Hmmm...is this because AVRs can't handle the new HDMI schemes? One for video, one for audio?

[Ian_S]

I guess where I (and others) am coming from with 2 HDMI outs is that for most it's given that you'll need to buy a new 3D display device and probably a new player if you want full 3D, and the obvious payoff for your expenditure is you get nice new 3D pictures.

However, 3D adds nothing new for audio, and all the existing amps that people have upgraded to recently may not work with whatever 3D implementation you end up choosing. However, if you upgrade to a 3D logo'd amp, you still get TrueHD and DTS-HD as before, so where's the incentive? Much harder sell.

Two HDMI out's on the player allows full 3D to go direct to the 3D display, and then the audio via a 'normal' signal to go to existing HDMI 1.3 amps for TrueHD and DTS-HD decoding. Then whether or not 3D will work with HDMI 1.3 implementations just becomes irrelevant.

[Ian_S]

Sorry forgot to add, I'm very curious how a full 1080p 3D signal would potentially get transmitted or handled through intermidiate HDMI 1.3 devices and still work, or is that the detail you are saying is tied up in licenses and NDAs etc.

It would certainly help confidence if a laymans version of how that might happen, and what HDMI 1.3 protocols a device needs to support now for such a scheme to work.

[kjack]

Originally Posted by Ian_S

I guess where I (and others) am coming from with 2 HDMI outs is that for most it's given that you'll need to buy a new 3D display device and probably a new player if you want full 3D, and the obvious payoff for your expenditure is you get nice new 3D pictures.

However, 3D adds nothing new for audio, and all the existing amps that people have upgraded to recently may not work with whatever 3D implementation you end up choosing. However, if you upgrade to a 3D logo'd amp, you still get TrueHD and DTS-HD as before, so where's the incentive? Much harder sell.

Two HDMI out's on the player allows full 3D to go direct to the 3D display, and then the audio via a 'normal' signal to go to existing HDMI 1.3 amps for TrueHD and DTS-HD decoding. Then whether or not 3D will work with HDMI 1.3 implementations just becomes irrelevant.

Hmmm....not sure why the AVR would care about the video portion of the HDMI signal since it is basically a switch. Won't be able to do any of the fancy video post processing though...

Having both 2D and 3D outputs wouldn't be hard for 3D BD players playing 3D BD content. But lots of additional cost/work otherwise since a separate 2D video isn't available, and would have to be generated/output.

We're talking with some AVR designers, so can ask them their thoughts...

[woodspoon]

So, Kjack, the PS3 is going to do 1080i 3d like Jeff says?

[Ian_S]

Originally Posted by kjack

Hmmm....not sure why the AVR would care about the video portion of the HDMI signal since it is basically a switch. Won't be able to do any of the fancy video post processing though...

Having both 2D and 3D outputs wouldn't be hard for 3D BD players playing 3D BD content. But lots of additional cost/work otherwise since a separate 2D video isn't available, and would have to be generated/output.

We're talking with some AVR designers, so can ask them their thoughts...

I guess it comes down to how likely the AVR is to be able to extract the audio successfully from the HDMI stream without corrupting it. Many change what then gets passed to the display, usually by removing the bitstream audio and either replacing with stereo, or not transmitting audio on at all.

In terms of the second non-3D ouput, rather than a 2D rendering of the film, why not simply a black screen. As long as it carries the sound then the video won't matter?

[EWL5]

Originally Posted by Ian_S

I guess where I (and others) am coming from with 2 HDMI outs is that for most it's given that you'll need to buy a new 3D display device and probably a new player if you want full 3D, and the obvious payoff for your expenditure is you get nice new 3D pictures.

However, 3D adds nothing new for audio, and all the existing amps that people have upgraded to recently may not work with whatever 3D implementation you end up choosing. However, if you upgrade to a 3D logo'd amp, you still get TrueHD and DTS-HD as before, so where's the incentive? Much harder sell.

Two HDMI out's on the player allows full 3D to go direct to the 3D display, and then the audio via a 'normal' signal to go to existing HDMI 1.3 amps for TrueHD and DTS-HD decoding. Then whether or not 3D will work with HDMI 1.3 implementations just becomes irrelevant.

I've made the same recommendation to a friend who bemoaned buying a Denon AVR back in 2006. The only catch is the dual-output player will probably not come cheap as current dual-HDMI output players currently MSRP for over $2k. The only other alternative would be a BD 3D player that can decode all and output via multichannel analog out for audio.

[kjack]

Originally Posted by Ian_S

Sorry forgot to add, I'm very curious how a full 1080p 3D signal would potentially get transmitted or handled through intermidiate HDMI 1.3 devices and still work, or is that the detail you are saying is tied up in licenses and NDAs etc.

It would certainly help confidence if a laymans version of how that might happen, and what HDMI 1.3 protocols a device needs to support now for such a scheme to work.

3D Video is covered by many patents, so companies can't run off and just do whatever they want. Well, they could but they'd get hit with a lawsuit later. But that has nothing do to with basic limitations of current devices.

1080p24 L/R streams could be sent over HDMI 1.3 using a packed format. However, the number of scan lines a BD decoder chip has to generate doubles. So if it wasn't designed to generate up to 4096 scan lines per frame, it makes no difference what HDMI solution is used.

To do 1080p60 L/R streams using a packed format requires a much faster HDMI connection, which many HDMI 1.3 chips probably don't support.

Outside of Blu-ray, almost everyone is initially looking at doing side/side or top/bottom half resolution in order to be able to use existing equipment. However, this is basically a pass-through mode to the 3DTV.

[4K2K]

How do the 2D to 3D functions work in chips for players & TVs?

Do they analyse loads of blocks or every pixel to approximate their position in 3D space - I suppose that would work best if there is quite a lot of camera movement in the shot? Or does it assume things lower down the screen are closer to the camera? How many 2D frames or fields does it analyse before outputting one frame/field in stereoscopic 3D?

How easy would it be to generate multiple view multi-view (around 9 views) in the player from analysing the stereoscopic video - especially analysing many frames/fields of stereo video, and will any players be doing that, even if most of the current displays are limited to showing 2 views (left+right) at any one time?

[kjack]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

How do the 2D to 3D functions work in chips for players & TVs?

Sorry, pesky NDAs get in the way...

How easy would it be to generate multiple view multi-view (around 9 views) in the player from analysing the stereoscopic video - especially analysing many frames/fields of stereo video, and will any players be doing that, even if most of the current displays are limited to showing 2 views (left+right) at any one time?

I think we're all too busy just trying to get 2 views out the door to think about more at this point...

[jcc]

Originally Posted by kjack

3D Video is covered by many patents, so companies can't run off and just do whatever they want. Well, they could but they'd get hit with a lawsuit later. But that has nothing do to with basic limitations of current devices.

1080p24 L/R streams could be sent over HDMI 1.3 using a packed format. However, the number of scan lines a BD decoder chip has to generate doubles. So if it wasn't designed to generate up to 4096 scan lines per frame, it makes no difference what HDMI solution is used.

To do 1080p60 L/R streams using a packed format requires a much faster HDMI connection, which many HDMI 1.3 chips probably don't support.

Outside of Blu-ray, almost everyone is initially looking at doing side/side or top/bottom half resolution in order to be able to use existing equipment. However, this is basically a pass-through mode to the 3DTV.

I don't get the part about HDMI 1.3 chips not being able to handle faster HDMI connections. The specifications for bandwidth are the same for HDMI 1.3 and 1.4 (max total 10.2 Gb, max video 8.16 Gb, max audio 36.86 Mb, max clock frequency 340 MHz, max color depth 48 bit). Are you saying that some HDMI 1.3 chips can't run at the specified bandwidth? Or would it be other supporting circuitry that is limiting the bandwidth?

I thought the main difference with HDMI 1.4 is additional Ethernet link capability and additional timings needed to handle some higher resolutions, and several different 3D specifications. So, is it an issue of bandwidths or preset timings?

I saw a blurb from a Panasonic demo a few months ago that suggested (with their pre-official 3D specification) that with HDMI 1.4 the required 3D mode will be autoconfigured, but with HDMI 1.3 you will have to manually configure it, but it will still work. Is that possible?

[Anthony P]

I am guessing you can't answer this, but since it popped up in a different thread, do you know if anyone is building/interested in looking at building a player that will take the two streams and output it as anaglyph for it to be compatible with older none-3D sets?

[kjack]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I am guessing you can't answer this, but since it popped up in a different thread, do you know if anyone is building/interested in looking at building a player that will take the two streams and output it as anaglyph for it to be compatible with older none-3D sets?

Yes...

[kjack]

ROXIO CINEMANOW TARGETING 3D downloadable movies for mid-year, 'a little ahead' of Blu-ray 3D.

[space2001]

Hey Keith,

What ever happened to the HDMI over COAX(MoCA). I thought by now we would see some of these products out.

Any news on this front. I know monster was suppose to have one last year, but never put anything out and never announced a delay.

Since CES was over powered by the 3D I really didn't see any news on it.

Thanks for any updates.

[kjack]

Originally Posted by space2001

Hey Keith,

What ever happened to the HDMI over COAX(MoCA). I thought by now we would see some of these products out.

Any news on this front. I know monster was suppose to have one last year, but never put anything out and never announced a delay.

Since CES was over powered by the 3D I really didn't see any news on it.

Thanks for any updates.

Haven't heard anything about it lately. But MoCA is not HDMI over coax, it's more like ethernet over the home coax. Diiva is getting my interest though...

http://www.diiva.org/


Sorry I haven't been around lately, been a little busy between this:

http://www.sensio.tv/Sites/sensio/mu...gn%20FINAL.pdf

and updating demo room since the RealD 3D, Android, and Yahoo! widgets demos are pretty popular.

[4K2K]

If live sport is shot with an interlaced camera at 60i, do the chips in LCD/Plasma HDTVs de-interlace the 60i video to 60p or to 30p? I would think it would be to 60p (assuming it's a 60hz LCD or Plasma HDTV)?

[kjack]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

If live sport is shot with an interlaced camera at 60i, do the chips in LCD/Plasma HDTVs de-interlace the 60i video to 60p or to 30p? I would think it would be to 60p (assuming it's a 60hz LCD or Plasma HDTV)?

60p. 120Hz displays either de-interlace to (a) 60p then frame double to 120p, or (b) 120p directly.