True 3-D capability on Blu-ray Disc...

[DaViD Boulet]

Since BD allows the second video stream (what is only a PIP function on HD DVD) to be encoded in full 1080p24 resolution, this stream could be used to encode the alternate left/right eye-angle of a 3-D film.

Standard BD players would play the movie normally in 2-D with the secondary video stream accessible as a normal PIP function.

However, 3-D-capable BD players could be designed to access the secondary video stream and output it via a second HDMI interface for a second projector simultaneously, or to "matrix" the two video streams together via one of several means, such as by alternating each frame from each stream to create a Left, Right, Left, Right, Left, Right cadence with a 48 kHz signal that could then be synched with LCD shutter glasses.

These later enhancements to BD hardware capability would be *** Cheap and Easy *** and would only require a minor modification to BD-J specs.

What do you guys think? IMO, now is the time to start a conversation about this while BD-J is still in the early stages and players are still undergoing lots of flux with implimentation of BD-J. It should not be necessary to debate the inferior alternatives available with retro-fitting 3-D software into existing specs via interlacing and color-filters. Dual 1080p24 video streams would be the first time TRUE FULL-FIDELITY 3-D would be available via consumer media: and it would enable full backwards compatibility with 2-D viewers so one Disc solution would work for everyone.

-dave

[CptGreedle]

Innovative.. interesting...
It might work but would require a lot of work.
And I'm not sure the monitors would handle it, I think projectors would have trouble with it too.
Plus you'd need some sort of goggles/glasses timed to the frames or something.
But it might work. It would be cool to see happen. you could get movies like Nightmare b4 Christmas and Meet the Robinsons in 3D like they were in theaters.

[WickyWoo]

it's unnecessary, since you can just encode a signal like that as the video image. It's not done via interlacing, you just encode as 1080p/60

The second decoder is only designed for PIP, one is the main window at a time, and it takes some time (a second or so) to switch them. there's no way to "page flip" them

And the expense of putting that together, and relying on the end user to line it up with the exactitude to make it work would never sell enough copies.

[DaViD Boulet]

it's unnecessary, since you can just encode a signal like that as the video image. It's not done via interlacing, you just encode as 1080p/60

You've completely missed the point. Please re-read my post.

Your solution is not a mainstream solution in that it does not provide backwards compatibilty with legacy 2-D systems. The ONLY systems capable of playing your variety of 3-D encodings are specialty systems designed for just that task... or (ironically) with CRT-interlaced systems that have no deinterlacing processing in their signal path (something that cannot be said for virtually any HD display on the market to day). It's also one reason why that solution is only used for a handful of novelty discs on DVD and not for any serious wide-scale 3-D presentation of studio product.

A single disc solution that works for everyone, 2-D and 3-D viewer alike, and that provides full fidelity, is a solution that could actuall deliver 3-D content on a wide-scale. That's what I'm proposing and it's why I'm proposing it.

BTW, the BD format does not encompass 1080p60, much to my dismay. And you could not deliver 1080i60 (interlaced) encodings and acheive a working solution with any existing deinterlacing/decoding engine: that 480i60 trick with some 3-D DVDs only works on native 480i CRT displays that have no intermediary deinterlacing.

With a system that could package the two streams in the player in real-time as 1080p48, most decoders and displays would be "blind" to this progressive content and leave it unharmed. A sytem that depends on an interlaced signal won't work for today's progressive-displays. Note that shutter glasses are only one option for 3-D playback: the better method would be dual-projection using polorized filters and glasses like the typical IMAX 3-D presentation. With two 1080p projector costing under 5K in the next few years, that won't be an impossible goal even for a budget HT enthusiast who wants to collect 3-D movies.

One more point. Simultaneous decoding of dual streams is already accomplished with PIP. That's part of BD-J. Even full 1080p PIP with "swapping". Naturally, only players dedicated to the task of 3-D capability would need to decode the full 1080p for both streams at the same time anyway. Those players could charge a premium without a problem.

It would be nice if we could start conversations here at a level beyond the typical AVS-style banter where we waste energy going over obvious ground that shouldn't need covering.

[DaViD Boulet]

And I'm not sure the monitors would handle it, I think projectors would have trouble with it too.
Plus you'd need some sort of goggles/glasses timed to the frames or something.

Most displays and processors would "pass thorugh" progressive signals (like the alternating left/right/left/right 1080p48 signal). Yes, synching LCD Shutter glasses would require some tweaking: any 3-D system would need to have a variable delay on the LCD glasses so the user could tweak to compensate for processing delays in the signal chain.

But shutter glasses are only one possible solution.

The real solution for the 3-D enthusiast would be to use dual-projection via poloraized filters and glasses (dual HDMI output on the 3-D BD hardware). This would work seamlessly with 100% of hardware. 1080p projectors are falling in price and will continue to do so. Within a few years dual 1080p machines will probably retail for less than the Sony Ruby did when it first hit the streets.

[cdot2four]

if they could do then do it. how bad ass would 3D movies be. friday the 13th part 3 and jaws 3 would be sweet. Vivid DVD 3D haha porn would be awesome

[DaViD Boulet]

Lots of historic 3-D from the 1950's. Not to mention the wealth of 3-D IMAX films.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Since BD allows the second video stream (what is only a PIP function on HD DVD) to be encoded in full 1080p24 resolution, this stream could be used to encode the alternate left/right eye-angle of a 3-D film.

Standard BD players would play the movie normally in 2-D with the secondary video stream accessible as a normal PIP function.

However, 3-D-capable BD players could be designed to access the secondary video stream and output it via a second HDMI interface for a second projector simultaneously, or to "matrix" the two video streams together via one of several means, such as by alternating each frame from each stream to create a Left, Right, Left, Right, Left, Right cadence with a 48 kHz signal that could then be synched with LCD shutter glasses.

These later enhancements to BD hardware capability would be *** Cheap and Easy *** and would only require a minor modification to BD-J specs.

What do you guys think? IMO, now is the time to start a conversation about this while BD-J is still in the early stages and players are still undergoing lots of flux with implimentation of BD-J. It should not be necessary to debate the inferior alternatives available with retro-fitting 3-D software into existing specs via interlacing and color-filters. Dual 1080p24 video streams would be the first time TRUE FULL-FIDELITY 3-D would be available via consumer media: and it would enable full backwards compatibility with 2-D viewers so one Disc solution would work for everyone.

-dave

Dave, the first thing that came to mind when I read a kjack post that said Blu-ray had a 1080p secondary video capability was 3D.

The compatibility of the concept is spectacular. Watch it as PiP, and it's really the same movie. No big deal. But, with the right player and display equipment, you have 3D.

Two 1080p/24 HDMI outputs to a display generating a 48Hz mixed output and transmitting a Bluetooth signal to control special glasses would be the obvious first idea that would be quite cheap to implement for panel displays (and offer the value added to encourage a purchase over the run of the mill Chinese display).

We'd need some peak efficiencies improvements in AVC to pull it off. But, eventually 20Mbps per eye would work for a lot of content.

Gary

P.S. Incidently, David was the first person (about 2.5 years ago) to bring up the need for constant height encodings in the next-gen (in response, if I recall, to me posting about pushing for anamorphic encoding). Were were roundly attack by those said such constant height systems would be extremely rare, and it added to the costs, blah blah blah.

Innovation is a stupid idea, until 2-3 years later when the forums are full of people asking why nobody thought of it.

[DaViD Boulet]

Thanks Gary.

Allow me to get on the soapbox myself and mention that it was myself and "Healthnut" from AVS who put together a petition for the studios (which ran several years ago in Widescreen review before HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc were even on the table) for HD-media in which we requested:

* native 1080p24 HD presentation of film-source material.
* lossless audio encoding and provision for high-res 24/96 5.1 audio.
* true font-type subtitles that would allow user-repositioning on the screen.

At the time we were laughed at by many at AVS and HTF for our "pie in the sky" idea of HD media. We were told that there would never be affordable 1080p displays (this was when Joe Kane was talking about how we should all settle for a low-bit-rate red-laser 720P HD solution... my how I was crucified for criticizing him on that one!) and that the studios would never go for native 1080p software.

It's hard to be an visionary around here... even among fellow HT enthusiasts!


I'm surprised by how many in the industry only seem to be able to look backwards down the path of technology. Hopefully 3-D won't suffer that fate.

[Branden]

shutter glasses are very simple technology. the geomatics industry has been using them for over 15 years, particularily for aerial orthorectification. they are also probably the clearest economical option for 3D video (over that of red/blue filters or stereoscopes). in order for the glasses to sync with the frames they receive a sync-signal sent by the video source, usually by IR. in typical orthorectification programs there is an IR emitter (looks kinda like webcam that you place on/beside the PC monitor) which sends the sync-signal to the glasses (as long as there is line of sight).

if you've ever gone to see a 3D movie in the theatres you'll notice a small IR receiver on a corner of the glasses and a few IR emitters around the screen. if you put your finger over the receiver the 3D movie goes wonky because the glasses lose their signal that time them with the frames.

and therein lies the reason why we likely won't see 3D movies coming to BD, BD players aren't equiped with anything meant to send any kind of sync-signal, and cheaper TV's won't support any framerate other than 30.

what is more likely to happen is to see 3D games coming to the PS3 simply because of its flexability to do such a thing, including adjusting framerate to suit your TV. i would not be surprised to see, a few years from now, 3D PS3 games emerging that just come bundled with shutter-glasses that receive their sync-signal via bluetooth. its just up to sony to develope the glasses and developers to program the games.

[DaViD Boulet]

and therein lies the reason why we likely won't see 3D movies coming to BD, BD players aren't equiped with anything meant to send any kind of sync-signal, and cheaper TV's won't support any framerate other than 30

If you've been reading the discussion here, you'd see we're talking about making a change to the BD-J spec.

A simple add-on device could sit between your dual-HDMI BD player and display (or a software enhancment could provide this function directly from your player) and configure the two video streams into a 1080p48 or 1080p60 signal for your TV and send the appropriate sync to your shutter glasses. Obviously a 3-D enthusiast could take care to buy a display compatible with 1080p48 or 1080p60 signals. That's hardly a challenge these days.

And again... projection enthsiasts could use two projection devices and do away with LCD shutter glasses altogether.

[CptGreedle]

I don't know how they would do it, and I understand that allot of you guys have ideas, but either way, I would LOVE to see 3D movies on my 1080p screen like I do when i go to my local theater and see something on the 3D screen there.
Polarized lenses would be out I think, but I know there are many ways to make a believable 3D effect.
It would be so cool to see all those new films that were released in 3D but so few ppl get to see (like Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix).
That would ROCK!
I think the 3D format should be a viable format. Something that should be thought of as a practical and even common medium for film. I don't expect all film to become 3D, but it would be cool to have a lot more of them in 3D, and even more screens to see them on.

[WickyWoo]

With two 1080p projector costing under 5K in the next few years, that won't be an impossible goal even for a budget HT enthusiast who wants to collect 3-D movies.

Sorry, I don't know anyone that considers *1* 5K projector "budget", let alone 2, let alone the quality screen you need for polarized to work, plus a dual headed blu-ray player

This is all very expensive and highly specialized equipment. It's not going to happen for a handful of old movies enjoyed by a niche. You're talking millions of dollars in R&D alone that you'd be lucky to make back, let alone profit on.

and therein lies the reason why we likely won't see 3D movies coming to BD, BD players aren't equiped with anything meant to send any kind of sync-signal, and cheaper TV's won't support any framerate other than 30.

Samsung HLT series has a glasses sync port and supports 1080p/60.

what is more likely to happen is to see 3D games coming to the PS3 simply because of its flexability to do such a thing, including adjusting framerate to suit your TV. i would not be surprised to see, a few years from now, 3D PS3 games emerging that just come bundled with shutter-glasses that receive their sync-signal via bluetooth. its just up to sony to develope the glasses and developers to program the games.

What's really ironic is that the Sega Master System had games using the LCD shutter glasses 20 years ago.

[DaViD Boulet]

I don't know how they would do it, and I understand that allot of you guys have ideas, but either way, I would LOVE to see 3D movies on my 1080p screen like I do when i go to my local theater and see something on the 3D screen there.
Polarized lenses would be out I think, but I know there are many ways to make a believable 3D effect.
It would be so cool to see all those new films that were released in 3D but so few ppl get to see (like Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix).
That would ROCK!

The cool thing with having both "eye angle" streams on the BD as discrete video streams is that the BD player or intermediary-device could basically package the signal for any kind of 3-D display technology you want. Two projectors with polarized light? A Plasma display synced to LCD shutter glasses? Anything else you want... the source signals are there via dual HDMI on the 3-D equipped BD player to be used any way you want.

This is all very expensive and highly specialized equipment. It's not going to happen for a handful of old movies enjoyed by a niche. You're talking millions of dollars in R&D alone that you'd be lucky to make back, let alone profit on.

You're not getting it... it would cost NOTHING to make the software. Because it's just the secondary video stream on the BD... the same stream where studios will be routinely putting PIP running video commentary.

No extra cost for mastering, replication, or anything (other than restoring and transfering both left/right eye film elements... but most studios have already done that for 3-D theatrical release as WB did with Kiss Me Kate). The same disc plays fine for 2D and 3D viewers.

It's up to 3-D viewers to get the hardware/software they need to get full 3-D playback. But that's their choice. It wouldn't cost the studio any more to give us the 3-D movie software... which has always been the problem because we've never had a single-disc solution that would provide full fidelity 2-D and 3-D for everybody. We do now: Blu-ray Disc.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

It's hard to be an visionary around here... even among fellow HT enthusiasts!


I'm surprised by how many in the industry only seem to be able to look backwards down the path of technology. Hopefully 3-D won't suffer that fate.

I think 3D would be the critical new idea that would drive next-gen adoption. The average person realizing they could get a normal AND 3D product on one disc would adopt sooner than normal.

And the big name display makers like Sony, Panasonic, Sharp, etc. would have a visionary value-added that would distinguish them for some time from common Chinese panels.

Clearly, with its high capacity, high bandwidth and already specced dual-HD stream capability, Blu-ray is the only tech that could be adapted easily and cheaply to the idea.

This would be a winner all around for the BDA. They should grab this and run.

Gary

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

It's up to 3-D viewers to get the hardware/software they need to get full 3-D playback. But that's their choice. It wouldn't cost the studio any more to give us the 3-D movie software... which has always been the problem because we've never had a single-disc solution that would provide full fidelity 2-D and 3-D for everybody. We do now: Blu-ray Disc.

There are already Blu-ray discs that support D-BOX, which requires special platform or chair technology to cause movement.

Relative to that, some $25 - $50 a piece 3D glasses is cheap cool new tech.

Gary

[Blu Tiger]

Here a link to a thread I started with an interesting article on the future of 3-D movies.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=8307

[ra1024]

Here's the part I don't understand. How do the dual video streams deal with the 40mbs bandwidth limitation? It seems to me that if you had 2 video streams, you would be limited to half the max bitrate if both were going to be equal streams for each half of a 3d image.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by ra1024

Here's the part I don't understand. How do the dual video streams deal with the 40mbs bandwidth limitation? It seems to me that if you had 2 video streams, you would be limited to half the max bitrate if both were going to be equal streams for each half of a 3d image.

As I said above, the efficiencies of the modern codecs have to improve somewhat before this is possible for the top PQ. But 20Mbps for AVC even now isn't too bad. It isn't optimal, but it's pretty good.

I would expect if this became an issue in a few years, what you'd get is a two disc solution. One containing the no-holds barred normal presentation. And a second with the 3D presentation.

But, it does bring up an interesting temporal question: What does the brain perceive if complementary resolution is presented uniquely to each eye?

That is, if you had a 1920 pixel per line resolution:

A1A2B1B2C1C2 ...

And the left eye was presented with A1A1B1B1C1C1 and the right eye A2A2B2B2C2C2. Would the brain perceive any shifts, or would it blend the image into an apparent 1920 pixel per line picture?

Gary

[DaViD Boulet]

Here's the part I don't understand. How do the dual video streams deal with the 40mbs bandwidth limitation? It seems to me that if you had 2 video streams, you would be limited to half the max bitrate if both were going to be equal streams for each half of a 3d image.

You're right.

However, even the "limits" of BD's video bit-rate cut in half is generous in comparison to the video bit-rates being applied to encodes for HD DVD for single streams...



20 mbps probably won't provide perfect transparency for the most challenging material, but it should be plenty for most titles... especially newer digitally-photographed or clean prints struck for 3-D projection. (this assumes, of course, that most 3-D titles will be relatively grain-free. Probably a reasonable assumption for most 3-D prints or digital files).