Look what I found poking around the web!
http://www.nabanet.com/nabaweb/documents/agms/2009/P1_PFannon.pdf

"As 3D Moves to the Home…
Early Adopters Will Demand Premium Product"

Verrry interesting, though not unexpected :)

Am I the only one who hopes 3D doesn't catch on?

Am I the only one who hopes 3D doesn't catch on?

Why wouldn't you want it to catch on (aside from the amount of cash you'd have to invest?)

Look what I found poking around the web!
http://www.nabanet.com/nabaweb/documents/agms/2009/P1_PFannon.pdf

"As 3D Moves to the Home…
Early Adopters Will Demand Premium Product"

Verrry interesting, though not unexpected :)Interesting, and this document is the first time I have seen two channels of 1080p24 video mentioned for the Panasonic 3D method. In previous articles (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/HONSHI/20081030/160508/) they talked about 2 channels of 1080i60 video.

Interesting, and this document is the first time I have seen two channels of 1080p24 video mentioned for the Panasonic 3D method. In previous articles (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/HONSHI/20081030/160508/) they talked about 2 channels of 1080i60 video.

Yes - I also noticed that. That will require less storage than 60i

How can this updated spec be for 1080p24 and 1080i30 only? If they're updating the specs they need 1080p50 and 1080p60 if they're going to be competing with broadcast HD. Otherwise Blu-ray will be worse than broadcast HD spec-wise.

How can this updated spec be for 1080p24 and 1080i30 only? If they're updating the specs they need 1080p50 and 1080p60 if they're going to be competing with broadcast HD. Otherwise Blu-ray will be worse than broadcast HD spec-wise.

Aren't BD's in the UK 1080x24P?

For the 120V power countries, it's 60i (HD video). For 220V countries it would be 50i

Aren't BD's in the UK 1080x24P?

For the 120Hz power countries, it's 60i (HD video). For 220 Hz countries it would be 50i
Unlike in the USA, Blu-ray titles in the Europe can use any of the available Blu-ray resolutions and frame rates that are in the current spec. 24p, 50i, 60i, 50p and 60p (the not full HD at the later two), and European players will be able to play them back cos all TVs are compatible with them too.

Unlike in the USA, Blu-ray titles in the Europe can use any of the available Blu-ray resolutions and frame rates that are in the current spec. 24p, 50i, 60i, 50p and 60p (the not full HD at the later two), and European players will be able to play them back cos all TVs are compatible with them too.

There are BD's in Europe that are mastered at 1280x720x50P?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc

Am I the only one who hopes 3D doesn't catch on?

No!

If 3D becomes the norm, we will end with 2 versions of the same movie, 2D and 3D, on the same disk at half bitrate.

No!

If 3D becomes the norm, we will end with 2 versions of the same movie, 2D and 3D, on the same disk at half bitrate.

And why would they do that?

Something wrong with a 3D SKU and a 2D SKU for a BD movie?

They have 2 SKU's for DVD don't they?

And why would they do that?

Something wrong with a 3D SKU and a 2D SKU for a BD movie?

They have 2 SKU's for DVD don't they?

I hope that you'll be right, but so far, look at BDs like "Journey To The Center Of The Earth". This one had 2 versions on the same disk, and it looked soft.

I hope that you'll be right, but so far, look at BDs like "Journey To The Center Of The Earth". This one had 2 versions on the same disk, and it looked soft.

True stereoscopic 3D has a different storage requirement than the old anaglyph 3D method currently used for 3D.

I hope that you'll be right, but so far, look at BDs like "Journey To The Center Of The Earth". This one had 2 versions on the same disk, and it looked soft.

It was filmed using digital camera's and i think any perceived softness was either because Warner filtered it slightly or because thats how it was shot and is supposed to look but it was nothing to do with disc capacity and storage issues.

That movie was short and could easily fit on a BD-25.

Aren't BD's in the UK 1080x24P?

For the 120Hz power countries, it's 60i (HD video). For 220 Hz countries it would be 50i

Methinks you need to check up on Hz versus V in relation to power.

Look what I found poking around the web!
http://www.nabanet.com/nabaweb/documents/agms/2009/P1_PFannon.pdf

"As 3D Moves to the Home…
Early Adopters Will Demand Premium Product"

Verrry interesting, though not unexpected :)

Why "leaked"?

http://www.nabanet.com/nabaweb/meetings/presentations/default.asp?load=agm_2009

Methinks you need to check up on Hz versus V in relation to power.

Oops! :o

Fixed it.

How can this updated spec be for 1080p24 and 1080i30 only? If they're updating the specs they need 1080p50 and 1080p60 if they're going to be competing with broadcast HD. Otherwise Blu-ray will be worse than broadcast HD spec-wise.

movies that are recorded on film have a rate of 23.97 fps and its rounded up to 24. I am hoping they will do this to try and keep with the original film so it has that cinematic quality to it. The only problem I see is that they would have to also include a 60p capability to cover TV shows and some movies that are recorded in video at that speed.

movies that are recorded on film have a rate of 23.97 fps and its rounded up to 24. I am hoping they will do this to try and keep with the original film so it has that cinematic quality to it. The only problem I see is that they would have to also include a 60p capability to cover TV shows and some movies that are recorded in video at that speed.

The link shows two frame rates:

24P for movies

60i for video

Where is the need for 60P? That would overwhelm BD's storage capacity for 3D content.

If 3D becomes the norm, we will end with 2 versions of the same movie, 2D and 3D, on the same disk at half bitrate.Not true. With H.264 MVC, the stream for one eye is used for the 2D presentation, and can be decoded by any H.264 decoder.

Sorry. Was still early. Meant 60i.

Not true. With H.264 MVC, the stream for one eye is used for the 2D presentation, and can be decoded by any H.264 decoder.

And how much relative bandwidth takes the other eye stream? Same as the first, or less by some sort of redundancy savings?

If it's the same, then the 2D presentation will be able to use only half the bitrate.

And how much relative bandwidth takes the other eye stream? Same as the first, or less by some sort of redundancy savings?

If it's the same, then the 2D presentation will be able to use only half the bitrate.

The MVC standard defines efficient ways so that any subset of the views is easily separable from the entire bitstream. As the regular two dimensional TV applications are still widely used, backwards compatibility has been an important target for MVC. The MVC standard achieved backwards
compatibility by defining the bitstream so that a compliant H.264/AVC decoder can decode a single 2D view and discard the rest of the data, whereas a compliant MVC decoder can decode all the views and generate the 3D video

http://research.nokia.com/files/3D_Video.pdf

And how much relative bandwidth takes the other eye stream? Same as the first, or less by some sort of redundancy savings?From what Panasonic has said (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/HONSHI/20081030/160508/) the second video stream would increase the video bitrate by about 50%.

From what Panasonic has said (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/HONSHI/20081030/160508/) the second video stream would increase the video bitrate by about 50%.

So, a 3D movie displayed in 2D mode would only lose 33% of the bandwidth compared to a 2D native version.

Not as bad as I feared, thanks for the information.

It would still be a step back in quality though, I don't like the idea!

The link shows two frame rates:

24P for movies

60i for video

Where is the need for 60P? That would overwhelm BD's storage capacity for 3D content.
The project manager of the EBU said that it wouldn't need any more bandwidth (actually he was talking about 50i vs 50p but that would apply to 60i vs 60p too).

If we have 60i for video (and actually cinematographers want to shoot movies in this format too), then there is also a need for 60p, because 60p is better quality than 60i. We have progressive TVs so we shouldn't be using interlaced formats. People would rather have a progressive format with the same refresh rate as the interlaced format because it would be better quality ie. 60p instead of 60i. There is also a need for 50p/60p because TV studios and broadcasters are using them, and using them for the Blu-ray version would give the best quality. Even if they recorded it in 60p/50p but then broadcast it in 60i/50p there would be a 60p/50p version for the Blu-ray to make it better quality than the broadcast version. The 3D HD Home Master format is 60p per eye too.

The project manager of the EBU said that it wouldn't need any more bandwidth (actually he was talking about 50i vs 50p but that would apply to 60i vs 60p too).

If we have 60i for video (and actually cinematographers want to shoot movies in this format too), then there is also a need for 60p, because 60p is better quality than 60i. We have progressive TVs so we shouldn't be using interlaced formats. People would rather have a progressive format with the same refresh rate as the interlaced format because it would be better quality ie. 60p instead of 60i. There is also a need for 50p/60p because TV studios and broadcasters are using them, and using them for the Blu-ray version would give the best quality. Even if they recorded it in 60p/50p but then broadcast it in 60i/50p there would be a 60p/50p version for the Blu-ray to make it better quality than the broadcast version. The 3D HD Home Master format is 60p per eye too.

1080x60i is 60 fields a sec which can be seen as 30 FPS because 2 fields = 1 frame. By mastering in 60P, you will double the storage requirements. They same goes for 50P.

The specs for BD do not allow for either 1080x60P or 1080x50P.