4K 3D Movies Not Included in Ultra HD Blu-ray Format ?

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by Paul.R.S

But many of the same parties that are (read: should be) working on 4k BD are involved/stakeholders in 4k 3D BD. So I guess part of what I'm wondering aloud about is why is 4k BD launching without a 3D component already baked in.

The BDA would have to delay Ultra HD Blu-ray at least a year if they wanted 3D HEVC to be included in all players. Also it wouldn't make economic sense for them to make 3D a mandatory feature on all players compared to adding 3D as an optional extension (which is how Blu-ray 3D was added).

[Paul.R.S]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

The BDA would have to delay Ultra HD Blu-ray at least a year if they wanted 3D HEVC to be included in all players. Also it wouldn't make economic sense for them to make 3D a mandatory feature on all players compared to adding 3D as an optional extension (which is how Blu-ray 3D was added).

The original point of discussion I was (hopefully constructively) contributing to was a different matter: The degree of certainty (or not) that manufs are generally going to include 1080 3D BD compat in their 4k decks.

What you're responding to here is a little different: Namely, the source of the "comedy" in a couple recent new thread entrants' posts about the inclusion of 4k 3D in the 4k 3D BD rollout when the spec doesn't exist yet. But my point in this regard would be/is that I'm not opining that 4k 3D BD compat should be mandatory . . . if it existed.

Rather, I would be saying 3D ain't new: Why couldn't the BDA have developed the 4k 3D BD spec concomitant with the whole 4k BD format and made it an optional capability for manufs' decks from the initial rollout of the format? Instead of sending interested parties back to buy more gear, oh, a year to 18 months after the format debuts, wouldn't it be grand if it was there from the jump and consumers could exercise choice in terms of what brands they buy depending on whether they're interested in 3D or not.

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by Paul.R.S

Why couldn't the BDA have developed the 4k 3D BD spec concomitant with the whole 4k BD format and made it an optional capability for manufs' decks from the initial rollout of the format? Instead of sending interested parties back to buy more gear, oh, a year to 18 months after the format debuts, wouldn't it be grand if it was there from the jump and consumers could exercise choice in terms of what brands they buy depending on whether they're interested in 3D or not.

The schedule for HEVC development is beyond the control of the BDA so waiting for the 3D HEVC profiles would be the easiest option. The BDA could delay the Ultra HD Blu-ray format until that is possible but that is unlikely to happen. The CE companies want to have Ultra HD Blu-ray released as soon as possible since it would help them sell 4K TVs.

[Paul.R.S]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

The schedule for HEVC development is beyond the control of the BDA so waiting for the 3D HEVC profiles would be the easiest option. The BDA could delay the Ultra HD Blu-ray format until that is possible but that is unlikely to happen. The CE companies want to have Ultra HD Blu-ray released as soon as possible since it would help them sell 4K TVs.

Thanks. Helpful information. I think I'm assuming too much overlap between VCEG and MPEG entities, on the one hand, and BDA members on the other.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Paul.R.S

Re ^^

But many of the same parties that are (read: should be) working on 4k BD are involved/stakeholders in 4k 3D BD. So I guess part of what I'm wondering aloud about is why is 4k BD launching without a 3D component already baked in.

simple mathematics
1080p has 2,073,600 pixels per frame (let's call it X)
1080p 3D has 4,147,200 pixels per frame (2X)
2160p (UHD) has 8,294,400 pixels per frame (4X)
2160p 3D (UHD) has 16,588,800 pixels per frame (8X)

now luckily with compression it should not be that drastic (i.e. UHD 3D should not need 8X the capacity and bandwidth on the disk compared to 1080p) the same way that 1080p 3D was more like 1.5X instead of 2X but it will still be a large enough number to make it hard to include in the specs and that is a simply on "frame" discussion where everything else is similar, add 60p that has 2.5 times the frames or HDR....

If we had 1GB disks with 1000 Mbps the question would in some way make sense but we don't so there is no use to put in specs that won't or can't be used

what I mean is this, when LOTR EE was announced there were many complaining that two hours into the 4h movies they would need to change disks, now imagine what would happen if it was every hour or 1/2 hour?

[mjcavinder]

Any word on release Ultra High Definition disc titles?

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

simple mathematics
1080p has 2,073,600 pixels per frame (let's call it X)
1080p 3D has 4,147,200 pixels per frame (2X)
2160p (UHD) has 8,294,400 pixels per frame (4X)
2160p 3D (UHD) has 16,588,800 pixels per frame (8X)

now luckily with compression it should not be that drastic (i.e. UHD 3D should not need 8X the capacity and bandwidth on the disk compared to 1080p) the same way that 1080p 3D was more like 1.5X instead of 2X but it will still be a large enough number to make it hard to include in the specs and that is a simply on "frame" discussion where everything else is similar, add 60p that has 2.5 times the frames or HDR....

If we had 1GB disks with 1000 Mbps the question would in some way make sense but we don't so there is no use to put in specs that won't or can't be used

what I mean is this, when LOTR EE was announced there were many complaining that two hours into the 4h movies they would need to change disks, now imagine what would happen if it was every hour or 1/2 hour?

I think you've brought up the reason there is currently no 4K 3D spec...it would require too much bandwidth.

[jono3000]

Originally Posted by radagast

I think you've brought up the reason there is currently no 4K 3D spec...it would require too much bandwidth.

Not that there's any calculation of bandwidth, but even assuming 8-bit color depth and HEVC compression I would expect 18Gbps to be sufficient.

[Geoff D]

Even the HDMI 2.0 'lite' bandwidth would be enough to carry 4K 3D @ 24p 8-bit 4:2:0, remember that it's capable of 60p 4K 2D at those specs so squirting out the equivalent of 48 frames per second (24 to each eye for 3D) wouldn't be a problem.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Even the HDMI 2.0 'lite' bandwidth would be enough to carry 4K 3D @ 24p 8-bit 4:2:0, remember that it's capable of 60p 4K 2D at those specs so squirting out the equivalent of 48 frames per second (24 to each eye for 3D) wouldn't be a problem.

I still think the 3D players will use MHL for 3D

[Paul.R.S]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

simple mathematics
1080p has 2,073,600 pixels per frame (let's call it X)
1080p 3D has 4,147,200 pixels per frame (2X)
2160p (UHD) has 8,294,400 pixels per frame (4X)
2160p 3D (UHD) has 16,588,800 pixels per frame (8X)

now luckily with compression it should not be that drastic (i.e. UHD 3D should not need 8X the capacity and bandwidth on the disk compared to 1080p) the same way that 1080p 3D was more like 1.5X instead of 2X but it will still be a large enough number to make it hard to include in the specs and that is a simply on "frame" discussion where everything else is similar, add 60p that has 2.5 times the frames or HDR....

If we had 1GB disks with 1000 Mbps the question would in some way make sense but we don't so there is no use to put in specs that won't or can't be used

what I mean is this, when LOTR EE was announced there were many complaining that two hours into the 4h movies they would need to change disks, now imagine what would happen if it was every hour or 1/2 hour?

Because there's is more data to crunch, it takes more time to write a codec to do that crunching?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by jono3000

Not that there's any calculation of bandwidth, but even assuming 8-bit color depth and HEVC compression I would expect 18Gbps to be sufficient.

18Gbps would mean that a 100GB disk won't even have 1 minute of data. So I am assuming that there is a slight mistake somewhere and until you tell us what you actually meant I will leave it at that. (did you mean 18Mbps? and if so is it sufficient for 1080p {I would probably agree}, 1080p 3d {maybe}, 4K {I would not want such low quality}, 4k 3D {now it is laughable})

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Paul.R.S

Because there's is more data to crunch, it takes more time to write a codec to do that crunching?

not sure what you are trying to say. Where did I discuss the time to write a codec?

[jono3000]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

18Gbps would mean that a 100GB disk won't even have 1 minute of data. So I am assuming that there is a slight mistake somewhere and until you tell us what you actually meant I will leave it at that. (did you mean 18Mbps? and if so is it sufficient for 1080p {I would probably agree}, 1080p 3d {maybe}, 4K {I would not want such low quality}, 4k 3D {now it is laughable})

I was only referring to the HDMI 2.0 specification maximum bandwidth. The original post suggested it wouldn't be enough for 4K 3D.
This is separate from the bitrate of the compressed data on the disc you are referring to.

[jono3000]

Originally Posted by Paul.R.S

Because there's is more data to crunch, it takes more time to write a codec to do that crunching?

Do you mean the time taken to decode each frame?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by jono3000

I was only referring to the HDMI 2.0 specification maximum bandwidth. The original post suggested it wouldn't be enough for 4K 3D.
This is separate from the bitrate of the compressed data on the disc you are referring to.

Ah OK, but what would that have to do with HVEC, that is where you lost me, HDMI is uncompressed video

[abcnews11]

Originally Posted by amoergosum

Source:
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-3d-201501273992.htm

no reason to buy HDMI 2.0 spec equipment because they already revealed a new standard is being released in 12-14 months

[AK65]

Originally Posted by abcnews11

no reason to buy HDMI 2.0 spec equipment because they already revealed a new standard is being released in 12-14 months

link?

[jono3000]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Ah OK, but what would that have to do with HVEC, that is where you lost me, HDMI is uncompressed video

Ah good point

[Paul.R.S]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

not sure what you are trying to say. Where did I discuss the time to write a codec?

I'm less trying to say something than I am asking something; namely, I'm asking for clarification of your original post (the one beginning "simple mathematics"). I literally don't understand your point so my question was a way of trying to summarize my (mis)understanding of what I thought you to be saying and ask a clarifying/summarizing question.

Perhaps I misunderstood you to be referring to the longer amount of time it will take to write a compression codec for this greater amount of data when--as radagast's post says--what you were perhaps instead referring to is just the greater amount of data (and the larger amount of space it would take to store a larger amount of data using the same codec?).

I didn't think 1080 3D required a different codec? My understanding is that frame packing, side-by-side and top/bottom--the way the data is presented/organized--is what enabled 1080 3D, not a new, more efficient codec. Why couldn't that be done here? Or are you saying it could be but it would just illicit complaints because it would require multiple BD for one 4k 3D movie?

I understand from Richard Paul that the issue is HEVC development. And I also now understand that HEVC developers can't write a codec for a format that doesn't yet have a spec (4k 3D). So I guess what I'm saying/bit*hing about is why can't/couldn't the BDA codify the 4k 3D spec contemporaneous with 4k BD such that the Whole Enchilada could launch at the same time. If the answer is "it's so much more data," then you see the circular issue/conundrum I'm trying to describe.

If the argument is that it would delay 2D 4k BD, I think the argument could also be made that it stymies 4k 3D BD adoption to roll it out some 12 to 18 months after 4k BD. I'm literally right now in the midst of speculating how long this is all gonna take . . . should I sell my 82" Mitsu DLP sooner rather than later especially since I'm moving again soon . . . but if I buy a 4k display now will it play HDMI-nice with 4k BD much less 4k 3D . . . if the format even gets codified are the studios going to even support 4k 3D BD . . . blah blah blah. I just wish this all were easier (I know, I know--'welcome to the hobby.').