The BDA formed a 3D task force in May 2009 to choose a 3D format for Blu-ray. The three main 3D formats I have heard about are the Dolby 3D format, the Sensio 3D format, and the Panasonic 3D format. Here is an article (http://www.macuser.co.uk/news/244597/dolby-looks-to-3d-video-at-home.html) on the the Dolby 3D format. Here is an article (http://displaydaily.com/2007/09/05/sensio-squeezes-3d-into-the-existing-video-system/) and press release (http://www.sensio.tv/en/press_room/news/news302) on the Sensio 3D format. Here is an an article (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/HONSHI/20081030/160508/), another article (http://www.homecinemachoice.com/blogs/team+hcc/will+james+camerons+upcoming+fantasy+epic+avatar+be+first+pa nasonic+3d+blu+ray+03+03+), and a document (http://www.nabanet.com/nabaweb/documents/agms/2009/P1_PFannon.pdf) on the Panasonic 3D format. Based on what I have read here are the pros and cons:

Dolby 3D format
Pros: Excluding 3D displays is compatible with all current CE equipment (AV receivers, Blu-ray players, HDMI extenders/switchers, video processors, etc...) and may be compatible with current 3D displays from certain companies (such as Mitsubishi and Samsung)
Cons: Takes 100% more capacity on Blu-ray (since it requires separate 2D and 3D encodings) and has half the horizontal resolution for 3D video

Sensio 3D format
Pros: Excluding 3D displays is compatible with all current CE equipment (AV receivers, Blu-ray players, HDMI extenders/switchers, video processors, etc...) and the first 3D displays with Sensio 3D decoding are being released by Hyundai this year
Cons: Takes 100% more capacity on Blu-ray (since it requires separate 2D and 3D encodings) and has more than half horizontal resolution for 3D video by encoding the horizontal information in "features the consumer would not normally see"

Panasonic 3D format
Pros: Takes 50% more capacity for the 3D video on Blu-ray (uses video channel differential encoding) and has full resolution 3D video
Cons: The 3D video would not be compatible with current CE equipment

Whichever can decode 1080p60 stereo.

It must work 100% with older players to play the movie in 2D.

Any solution that fails on this, cant be selected.

It must work 100% with older players to play the movie in 2D.A seperate 2D encoding would be required for the Dolby and Sensio 3D formats while I believe that the Panasonic 3D format has a compliant 2D video stream that can be decoded with current Blu-ray players.

It could be that none of them were good enough so the BDA decided to design their own

The Panasonic 3D system because:

1. It is the only 3D system to offer "Full HD" with the highest PQ of all 3D-HD delivery systems which is a major marketing point of BD.

2. Uses the least amount of storage.

3. Panasonic is the leading patent holder of BD and sits on the Board of Diirectors of the BDA.

Keith, I notice you selected "Other 3D format" and which 3D format do you think the BDA will pick for Blu-ray?

Well certainly we will see two discs for each film so the increased capacity isn't important ,correct ?

Art

Well certainly we will see two discs for each film so the increaed capacity isn't important ,correct ?

Art

Max bitrate takes a dive...

Keith, I notice you selected "Other 3D format" and which 3D format do you think the BDA will pick for Blu-ray?My problem is that instead of three generic descriptions of the three 3D technologies, specific solutions could only be selected. :)

My problem is that instead of three generic descriptions of the three 3D technologies, specific solutions could only be selected. :)
Do you think the 3d Blu-ray format will be able to decode 1080p60 stereoscopic? And 1080p48 stereoscopic too?

My problem is that instead of three generic descriptions of the three 3D technologies, specific solutions could only be selected. :)In terms of the three 3D formats mentioned which is closest in design to what you think the BDA will pick for Blu-ray?

seems to me that whatever it is will have to be compatible with current equipment--having a blu ray without compatible tv or vice versa wont work for sales i dont think and buying both at once is a lot for most people.

seems to me that whatever it is will have to be compatible with current equipment--having a blu ray without compatible tv or vice versa wont work for sales i dont think and buying both at once is a lot for most people.

They have to zero in on the users who already have at least the basics for 3D in hand. There is no way they will propose a standard that doesn't include those potentially, "ready" customers. It's got to be users with the 3d ready sets and BD players. That's the audience that will get the ball moving. I don't think the new standard will hinge on a new HDMI standard either. If it doesn't have full color, contrast and resolution then they can count me out.

I just got back from seeing G Force 3D. I took my grand daughter and great grand daughter and a cousin. It was their first 3D movie and they really enjoyed G Force and the 3D presentation. You can say I'm being an ambassador for 3D.

In terms of the three 3D formats mentioned which is closest in design to what you think the BDA will pick for Blu-ray?The goal of BD format is to be able to support high video quality, so I would not expect any 3D solution that uses reduced resolution to be adopted.

The goal of BD format is to be able to support high video quality, so I would not expect any 3D solution that uses reduced resolution to be adopted.Keith, it is assumed that Sigma is a voting BDA member so I hope that it can be conveyed to the BDA that some (many/majority?) of us BD users are not interested in a reduced resolution 3D format.

And please convey to the BDA that James Cameron would like to shoot at 48fps stereoscopic at full res, and that many other film makers want 1080p60 and full res 60p is also part of the Digital Cinema specification.

http://www.imago.org/index.php?new=76


Additional Frame Rates Standardized by SMPTE

The SMPTE has recently published a new standard called "Additional Frame Rates for D-Cinema". This standard defines the digital cinema projection speeds of 25, 30, 50 and 60 frames per second as possible additional projection frame rates inside the DC28 / 21DC framework (JPEG 2000), in addition to the speeds of 24 and 48 fps that were already defined....

Movies shot and shown at 60 fps will be virtually free of stroboscopic artefacts and will allow new developments in cinematographic language, since it will allow movements (both camera and/or action) that can not be rendered with 24 or 25 fps projection

Keith, it is assumed that Sigma is a voting BDA member so I hope that it can be conveyed to the BDA that some (many/majority?) of us BD users are not interested in a reduced resolution 3D format.

It has to be full resolution or I won't be interested.

They have to zero in on the users who already have at least the basics for 3D in hand. There is no way they will propose a standard that doesn't include those potentially, "ready" customers. It's got to be users with the 3d ready sets and BD players. That's the audience that will get the ball moving. I don't think the new standard will hinge on a new HDMI standard either. If it doesn't have full color, contrast and resolution then they can count me out.

I just got back from seeing G Force 3D. I took my grand daughter and great grand daughter and a cousin. It was their first 3D movie and they really enjoyed G Force and the 3D presentation. You can say I'm being an ambassador for 3D.

ok but how many truly 3d ready blu ray players are there--there are some dlp/lcd sets but that depends on the finalized format as to whether they would be compatible or not--thats what I am getting at. im not talking about the glasses type of 3d either--im referring to the real thing in full resolution...

ok but how many truly 3d ready blu ray players are there--there are some dlp/lcd sets but that depends on the finalized format as to whether they would be compatible or not--thats what I am getting at. im not talking about the glasses type of 3d either--im referring to the real thing in full resolution...

None of course but (he,he) I got my hand out for a PS3 firmware update which some predict will happen.

This Variety article that came out today is talking specifically about a BR player solution. Geez I hope we don't have to go out and by some 'special' Panasonic player just to utilise stereoscopic in our HT's. I would be pretty annoyed if I ended up wanting to replace or add another player alongside my Pioneer 09FD as soon as some time like the 1st quarter of next year. I love 3D, so I know I'm going to want it when Avatar comes out.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007678.html?categoryId=1009&cs=1&nid=2248

Geez I hope we don't have to go out and by some 'special' Panasonic player just to utilise stereoscopic in our HT's.3D Blu-ray players most likely will be released next year but if Panasonic's 3D method is chosen by the BDA they would be released by several CE companies.

3D Blu-ray players most likely will be released next year but if Panasonic's 3D method is chosen by the BDA they would be released by several CE companies.

Ahh yeah, that's all in the article. It actually indicates that there will be "3-D Blu-ray players from various manufacturers" released next year. It also separately mentions that Panasonic's Full HD 3D system will likely launch before Avatar comes to BR.

This Variety article that came out today is talking specifically about a BR player solution. Geez I hope we don't have to go out and by some 'special' Panasonic player just to utilise stereoscopic in our HT's. I would be pretty annoyed if I ended up wanting to replace or add another player alongside my Pioneer 09FD as soon as some time like the 1st quarter of next year. I love 3D, so I know I'm going to want it when Avatar comes out.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007678.html?categoryId=1009&cs=1&nid=2248

3D Junkie here also. There are still a lot of questions to be answered such as is Panasonic jumping the gun on the BD committee's not yet announced standard decision and a yes or no from Sony on whether the PS3 will get a firmware update as rumored (one person said it's official but I havent' seen an announcement) that will allow the PS3 to do 3D.

Here's some more;
Panasonic Ushers In The 3D HDTV Era—Will Ship 3D Displays & 3D Blu-ray Players in 2010 (http://hdguru.com/panasonic-ushers-in-the-3d-hdtv-era-will-ship-3d-displays-3d-blu-ray-players-in-2010/470/)

Richard Paul:

You remember this Panasonic PDF on their 3D system:

http://www.nabanet.com/nabaweb/documents/agms/2009/P1_PFannon.pdf

Does this PDF on their UniPher SoC tell you anythiing about how they will accomplish 3D on BD?

http://panasonic.co.jp/corp/news/official.data/data.dir/en071010-3/en071010-3.html

Richard Paul:

You remember this Panasonic PDF on their 3D system:

http://www.nabanet.com/nabaweb/documents/agms/2009/P1_PFannon.pdf

Does this PDF on their UniPher SoC tell you anythiing about how they will accomplish 3D on BD?

http://panasonic.co.jp/corp/news/official.data/data.dir/en071010-3/en071010-3.htmlThe article on the UniPhier SoC is from October of 2007 and when they refer to "simultaneously processing two large screens of high picture quality and full-HD" I think that they are referring to PiP decoding since that was one of the features Panasonic was promoting at the time. I haven't heard much about the Panasonic 3D method in terms of details but from what I have heard the Panasonic 3D method is based on the Multiview Video Coding (MVC) extension to MPEG-4 AVC. Keith has mentioned (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=16919281&postcount=20) that MPEG-4 AVC MVC video will be backward compatible with current MPEG-4 AVC decoders for 2D presentation.

How likely do you all think a firmware update would be all the PS3 would need to be able to deal with whatever new format they choose? I'm a bit of a 3D nut and have been waiting to see how Blu Ray was going to implement 3D before getting BD player. I'd snag a PS3 with the new price cut if there was a good chance it would keep up with the changes.

Also:
The Panasonic format seems best as long as you can get the 48 full frames per second to fit on the disc. How much space does a typical 2ish hour movie take? Is there extra space on the disc without having to sacrifice? Will the spec need to also support tri-layer-75 GB discs or quad-layer 100 GB discs? Seems like you might as well, as long as you're breaking the mold and need new players.

As far as the 2D version goes, I assume that can just be on a different disc much the way they often do anaglyphic movies today.

How likely do you all think a firmware update would be all the PS3 would need to be able to deal with whatever new format they choose? I'm a bit of a 3D nut and have been waiting to see how Blu Ray was going to implement 3D before getting BD player. I'd snag a PS3 with the new price cut if there was a good chance it would keep up with the changes.

Stringer also promised that the PlayStation 3 would be upgraded to support 3D playback of BD discs during 2010. Indeed, the Sony chief made a point of highlighting the 3D potential of future PS3 games, showing clips from Motorstorm Pacific Rift and Grand Turismo in the format.

http://www.homecinemachoice.com/blogs/team+hcc/sony+pledges+full+commitment+3d+partners+channel+5+net+tv+se rvice+03+09+09

Also:
The Panasonic format seems best as long as you can get the 48 full frames per second to fit on the disc. How much space does a typical 2ish hour movie take? Is there extra space on the disc without having to sacrifice? Will the spec need to also support tri-layer-75 GB discs or quad-layer 100 GB discs? Seems like you might as well, as long as you're breaking the mold and need new players.

As far as the 2D version goes, I assume that can just be on a different disc much the way they often do anaglyphic movies today.

The encode will be either 1080x24P or 1080x60i:

http://www.nabanet.com/nabaweb/documents/agms/2009/P1_PFannon.pdf

Using MPEG4 AVC MVC - they can extract a 2D version from the 3D encode. One single version of the movie

Lee, I think you're missing the "x2" on your specs. The document you posted said it would be:
1080x24p x2
or
1080x60i x2

Assuming current players couldn't be updated to use the codec to perform the extraction (that is currently and unknown, right?) I mostly meant that you could have legacy compliant 2D on one disc and new format 3D on the other disc so you don't have to worry about leaving consumers and their tech behind. Much like the BD that currently include a DVD as a 2nd or 3rd disc.

Also, Sony promised the PS3 would play 4D games right out of the box (with 2 1080p monitors, no less!)... so you'll have to excuse me if a promise like that is taken with a family sized box of salt grains. I mean, I hope they can pull it off. Since a large percentage of the available Blu Ray players are infact PS3's, that would mean a huge install base of inhome 3D capable players... but I won't personally be putting any money on that particular horse.

The baseline H.264 MVC stream (left eye) can be decoded by existing players. 3D-capable players would detect, extract, and use the additional enhancement MVC stream (to generate right eye information).

Lee, I think you're missing the "x2" on your specs. The document you posted said it would be:
1080x24p x2
or
1080x60i x2

Assuming current players couldn't be updated to use the codec to perform the extraction (that is currently and unknown, right?) I mostly meant that you could have legacy compliant 2D on one disc and new format 3D on the other disc so you don't have to worry about leaving consumers and their tech behind. Much like the BD that currently include a DVD as a 2nd or 3rd disc.

Also, Sony promised the PS3 would play 4D games right out of the box (with 2 1080p monitors, no less!)... so you'll have to excuse me if a promise like that is taken with a family sized box of salt grains. I mean, I hope they can pull it off. Since a large percentage of the available Blu Ray players are infact PS3's, that would mean a huge install base of inhome 3D capable players... but I won't personally be putting any money on that particular horse.

Quote:
Sony will launch a full range of 3D home entertainment products during 2010. Speaking at the first major press conference of this year's IFA tech-fest, CEO Howard Stringer announced that the Japanese giant was fully behind the BDA's standardisation of a Blu-ray specification for Full HD 3D, and that it would release screens to support the development, alongside a new generation of Blu-ray machines.

'Today 3D is clearly on its way to the mass-market, and as with high-definition a few years back, there are a variety of issues yet to be addressed, but the 3D train is on the track and we at Sony are ready to drive it home!' he declared.

Stringer also promised that the PlayStation 3 would be upgraded to support 3D playback of BD discs during 2010. Indeed, the Sony chief made a point of highlighting the 3D potential of future PS3 games, showing clips from Motorstorm Pacific Rift and Grand Turismo in the format.
http://www.homecinemachoice.com/blog...rvice+03+09+09

Quote:
Stringer also promised that the PlayStation 3 would be upgraded to support 3D playback of BD discs during 2010. Indeed, the Sony chief made a point of highlighting the 3D potential of future PS3 games, showing clips from Motorstorm Pacific Rift and Grand Turismo in the format.
http://www.homecinemachoice.com/blog...rvice+03+09+09

Yes, that is the promise quoted by Lee that I was referring to when I said that I wasn't quite ready to take it to the bank. Sony likes to make a lot of promises on which they never deliver.

Yes, that is the promise quoted by Lee that I was referring to when I said that I wasn't quite ready to take it to the bank. Sony likes to make a lot of promises on which they never deliver.

Sony has been golden on updates to the PS3. That is why the PS3 is at the top of the list among BD players. I am impressed at all the updates that have come out since I got my PS3 a couple of years ago. I have no doubt that the 3D firmware update will happen. The 3D Avatar game will be a wash on the PS3 without it and Sony was showing off the 3D gaming ability at CES 09 (which was a wink and a hint). Sony is 100% behind 3D for gaming and BD movies.

PS3's new 3D mode captured on video, coming in 2010 to all existing games

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/04/ps3s-new-3d-mode-captured-on-video-coming-in-2010-to-all-exist/

The baseline H.264 MVC stream (left eye) can be decoded by existing players. 3D-capable players would detect, extract, and use the additional enhancement MVC stream (to generate right eye information).

Alright, good to know. I'll stop worrying about it.

Sony has been golden on updates to the PS3. That is why the PS3 is at the top of the list among BD players. I am impressed at all the updates that have come out since I got my PS3 a couple of years ago. I have no doubt that the 3D firmware update will happen. The 3D Avatar game will be a wash on the PS3 without it and Sony was showing off the 3D gaming ability at CES 09 (which was a wink and a hint). Sony is 100% behind 3D for gaming and BD movies.

PS3's new 3D mode captured on video, coming in 2010 to all existing games


I hope so.

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/09/04/sony-no-plan-to-launch-3-d-support-for-all-ps3-games

So, back to my original concern about whether I buy a PS3 nowish, or wait until next year when hopefully we know more about 3D on BluRay...

Depending on the implementation, won't full 1080p x24 fps x2 potentially require HDMI 1.4? (or maybe something beyond 1.4 if that standard is already decided upon) When this all shakes out, will they release new PS3's with HDMI 1.4, or will they be able to handle that with a firmware update?

So, back to my original concern about whether I buy a PS3 nowish, or wait until next year when hopefully we know more about 3D on BluRay...

Depending on the implementation, won't full 1080p x24 fps x2 potentially require HDMI 1.4? (or maybe something beyond 1.4 if that standard is already decided upon) When this all shakes out, will they release new PS3's with HDMI 1.4, or will they be able to handle that with a firmware update?

Stringer also promised that the PlayStation 3 would be upgraded to support 3D playback of BD discs during 2010. Indeed, the Sony chief made a point of highlighting the 3D potential of future PS3 games, showing clips from Motorstorm Pacific Rift and Grand Turismo in the format.

http://www.homecinemachoice.com/blogs/team+hcc/sony+pledges+full+commitment+3d+partners+channel+5+net+tv+se rvice+03+09+09

http://www.homecinemachoice.com/blogs/team+hcc/sony+pledges+full+commitment+3d+partners+channel+5+net+tv+se rvice+03+09+09

I'm honestly not trying to ask the same question over and over again, but seeing how I get the same answer it seems that most of you think it is the same question. So this is my attempt at answering it differently enough so as to not offend:

Isn't it reasonable to expect that the current PS3 could be updated to do some sort of half-width 3D but that the bandwidth required to do 1080p x 24hz x 2 would require a revision to the HDMI spec? Is it not also reasonable to expect that the current PS3 might not fully handle HDMI 1.4 (or beyond) with just software/firmware changes?

I'm honestly not trying to ask the same question over and over again, but seeing how I get the same answer it seems that most of you think it is the same question. So this is my attempt at answering it differently enough so as to not offend:

Isn't it reasonable to expect that the current PS3 could be updated to do some sort of half-width 3D but that the bandwidth required to do 1080p x 24hz x 2 would require a revision to the HDMI spec? Is it not also reasonable to expect that the current PS3 might not fully handle HDMI 1.4 (or beyond) with just software/firmware changes?

What is the bandwidth requirement of Full HD 3D? Is it greater than this?

New HDMI 1.3 capabilities include:

•Higher speed: HDMI 1.3 increases its single-link bandwidth from 165MHz (4.95 gigabits per second) to 340 MHz (10.2 Gbps) to support the demands of future high definition display devices, such as higher resolutions, Deep Color™ and high frame rates. In addition, built into the HDMI 1.3 specification is the technical foundation that will let future versions of HDMI reach significantly higher speeds.

I don't believe (?) that 1.4 is a requirement just for 3D. What changes the requirement is wanting Ethernet Over HDMI and 3D. Then you are going to need not only 1.4 but a special cable(s).

Notice on page 4 of this PDF (Panasonics 3D system) under HDMI it says "single link."

http://www.nabanet.com/nabaweb/documents/agms/2009/P1_PFannon.pdf

I believe (?) that the FW UP will somehow reconfigure the CELL BE to do what is necessary to process and send the video stream. Look in The Official 3D Thread for an announcement about what Panasonic did to their Unipher SoC that was used in their modified BD player for 3D.

Thanks, Lee. That was more along the lines of the answer I was looking for.

Please read the articles you are putting in reference. Sensio will be a clear winner for the following reasons: 1- HD Quality (You would not notice a difference) 2- Only format that can compress a 3D image (Patent protected) 3- Require no additional bandwith, therefore compatible with current infrastructure 4- Compatibility with every delivery method: DVD, BD, Satellite, cable, internet,... :cool:

Please read the articles you are putting in reference. Sensio will be a clear winner

video of sensio 3d tech demo (http://electronicdesign.com/shows/ces/ed-ces09-0120-sensio.html)

Please read the articles you are putting in reference. Sensio will be a clear winner for the following reasons: 1- HD Quality (You would not notice a difference) 2- Only format that can compress a 3D image (Patent protected) 3- Require no additional bandwith, therefore compatible with current infrastructure 4- Compatibility with every delivery method: DVD, BD, Satellite, cable, internet,... :cool:Sorry, but for BD the bullet train already left the station...

Sorry, but for BD the bullet train already left the station...
Have the BDA acted on what James Cameron and others have said about frame rates, or will it still be only 24p, 50i & 60i at 1920x1080?

Have the BDA acted on what James Cameron and others have said about frame rates, or will it still be only 24p, 50i & 60i at 1920x1080?

Blu-ray Disc Association Talks 3D
The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDR) has announced its plans to incorporate 3D video into the Blu-ray format. The BDR says that it is working with major movie studios, IT, and consumer electronics companies to devise a standard for 3D Blu-ray films.

By coming up with a set standard the BDR can ensure a set level of quality for Blu-ray films across the platform. The specification will require the delivery of 1080p resolution to each eye and backwards compatibility with discs and players. This will require all 3D discs to also include a 2D version of the film.

http://www.i4u.com/article26716.html

For the latest 3D to 2D converter technology with option to select the left or the right image :

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3497/3223523440_e5df9f6727.jpg

The one on the right might kill the ansi contrast performance.
Early reports about some firmware issues causing double images because the automatic left/right sync control seem to have some issues.

Sorry, but for BD the bullet train already left the station...


Are you suggesting that the decision by the BD association was made? :confused:

3DKid

Are you suggesting that the decision by the BD association was made? :confused:

3DKid

When they made the requirements:

1. Must be Full HD for each eye

3. Must be backwards compatible (2D extraction)

Sounds like it to me. The Panasonic 3D system.

Just my opinion, but I have thought from the beginning that Panny would be the one with the BDA blessing. I just hope it works as well as we would all like.

Just my opinion, but I have thought from the beginning that Panny would be the one with the BDA blessing. I just hope it works as well as we would all like.

Should be as good as what you would see if you went to a Digital Cinema to see a 3D movie (a native 3D movie - not all are).

When they made the requirements:

1. Must be Full HD for each eye

3. Must be backwards compatible (2D extraction)

Sounds like it to me. The Panasonic 3D system.

Not just yet.
Panasonic uses the frame sequential technology for full 1080p, and so does sony.
Panasonic uses a 3d tv with shutter glasses, and so does sony.

"Sony's 3D compatible "BRAVIA" LCD TVs incorporate frame sequential display and active-shutter glass systems"
link (http://www.physorg.com/news171222489.html)

"Sony announced yesterday, on the eve of the IFA 2009 electronics show in Germany, it will be offering 3D HDTVs for sale in 2010! Sony plans to market a series of its Bravia LCD HDTVs as well as 3D capable Blu-ray products, 3D capable VAIO computers, digital cameras and updated 3D capable version of its PlayStation3 (PS3D) gaming console."
link (http://hdguru.com/sony-announces-3d-hdtvs-in-2010/479/)

It's only unkown if Sony 3d in 2010 is backward compatible showing 2d as well as 3d on disk.

Q: Among various formats of 3D technology, with or without viewing glasses, in half HD, full HD, frame sequential or line by line, which one has Panasonic selected, and why?
A: Panasonic has selected full HD video in frame sequential format. This format is used when showing Hollywood 3D movies in theaters,

Q: What will the 3D television viewing glasses be officially called?
A: We are still studying this point. Panasonic currently calls them “3D (Active) Shutter Glasses” inside the company.

pdf showing the rest of the Q&A (http://www.mediafire.com/?w0gigjzzf34)
panasonic video showing 3d tv (http://www.panasonic.com/3D/watch-IA8St57xnx4.aspx)

When they made the requirements:

1. Must be Full HD for each eye

3. Must be backwards compatible (2D extraction)

Sounds like it to me. The Panasonic 3D system.You missed two requirements... :)

- capable of bringing cinema-quality 3D to the home
- deployable in 2010

Not just yet.
Panasonic uses the frame sequential technology for full 1080p, and so does sony.
Panasonic uses a 3d tv with shutter glasses, and so does sony.
link (http://www.physorg.com/news171222489.html)

It's only unkown if Sony 3d in 2010 is backward compatible showing 2d as well as 3d on disk.Everyone has to separate what 3D technology is used for BD versus the 3DTV technology...

Everyone has to separate what 3D technology is used for BD versus the 3DTV technology...

I updated post #56.

If you look at the linked video panasonic is showing. It shows that frame sequential is for 1080p, and this uses film shot with a special 3d camera.

The 3dtv shows the right camera picture, then the glasses shutter so the right eye sees that frame, then the tv shows the left picture from the 3d camera and the shutter glasses worn over the eyes shows the left picture and blinds the right eye.
That's how frame sequential works.

So since sony is using this same hw system it makes sens they would use 3d cameras the same way.
however it is not yet absolutely sure since they have not shown a video explaining it as panasonic has.

I updated post #56.

If you look at the linked video panasonic is showing. It shows that frame sequential is for 1080p, and this uses film shot with a special 3d camera.

The 3dtv shows the right camera picture, then the glasses shutter so the right eye sees that frame, then the tv shows the left picture from the 3d camera and the shutter glasses worn over the eyes shows the left picture and blinds the right eye.
That's how frame sequential works.

So since sony is using this same hw system it makes sens they would use 3d cameras the same way.
however it is not yet absolutely sure since they have not shown a video explaining it as panasonic has.

What Keith is saying (I believe) is that you have to seperate the 3D system that is going to be used for BD (which looks like the Panasonic 3D system) and the technology that the HDTV CEM's are going to use for their 3DTVs.

Panasonic is going to use PDP for their 3DTV. Sony (like other CEMs) no longer make PDPs so they are going to use LCD as their platform for 3D. There are specific issues in displaying 3D and each platform needs to deal with them.

AFAIK, Sony does not have a 3D system that they are proposing to the BDA.

I can't find anything about sony making a proposal to the bda for 3d standardization online.

There were rumblings that sony wasn't using active shutter and pansonic was, then they say sony will now use active shutter glasses.

So the hw panasonic is showing is what sony is using, but only panasonic is applying to the bda so their technology is the blu ray 3d standard.

What Keith is saying (I believe) is that you have to seperate the 3D system that is going to be used for BD (which looks like the Panasonic 3D system) and the technology that the HDTV CEM's are going to use for their 3DTVs.Yes! :) The capture and display stuff has nothing to do with BD.

You have 3D capture, 3D distribution, and 3D display.

The 3D distribution format is dependent on the distribution medium, ie. BD, broadcast, etc. So the 3D BD specs know nothing about the capture and display side of things.

Yes! :) The capture and display stuff has nothing to do with BD.

You have 3D capture, 3D distribution, and 3D display.

The 3D distribution format is dependent on the distribution medium, ie. BD, broadcast, etc. So the 3D BD specs know nothing about the capture and display side of things.

Keith:

I have been studing this sentence:

Panasonic is not planning to standardize the techniques for displaying 3D imagery. At CEATEC Japan 2008, the company exhibited a 103-inch plasma display panel (PDP) television displaying 3D pictures (see Fig). It featured dual drive integrated circuits (IC) to achieve a high 120 frames/s, and modified phosphors to shorten plasma emission rise/fall times.

I understand the need for the dual drive IC to get to 120 FPS. What I could use a little (OK - a lot :D) of help with is the shorter rise/fall times - which I understand (?) is a product/measurement of the response time of the pixels. Either BTB or GTG depending on how the manufacturer makes the measurement with BTB being the hardest to accomplish.

PDPs have very fast response times - in the order of .002ms. (Do not know if this is BTB or GTG)

Does the size of a panel affect the response time of the pixels?

LCD's have a much slower response time - like 4ms. (GTG)

Is response time that much of an issue when displaying 3D versus 2D (both HD of course)?

Does the size of a panel affect the response time of the pixels?Don't know, I'm not a PDP kinda guy...

Is response time that much of an issue when displaying 3D versus 2D (both HD of course)?I read a white paper that mentioned frame-to-frame crosstalk affecting 3D quality on 120Hz 3D LCD HDTVs, so suggested 240Hz is really needed.

Section a

Keith:
Is response time that much of an issue when displaying 3D versus 2D (both HD of course)?

I was interested in your question, so I googled the answer and pieced together a information kit for you and others to read.

I had collected the posts I had with Richard Paul and the other posts I made on the subject and put them all into this post.
But after having researched the subject more I have better information here: link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1179743)

^^^

8:13:

Thank you very much for that PDF. :) :)

When they made the requirements:

1. Must be Full HD for each eye

3. Must be backwards compatible (2D extraction)

Sounds like it to me. The Panasonic 3D system.
When you say "must be full HD for each eye" - do you mean 1080p - or just 1920x1080?
Doesn't the Panasonic allow 24p and 60i? If it must be "full HD" (I assume you mean 1080p?) or that is the "minimum requirement" does that mean Panasonic's 60i can't be used for the BDA's 3D and it will only allow 24p and nothing else in 3D or will they allow 48p, 60p etc. at 1920x1080? If they're making it so existing players can read the left eye's video stream and output that as 2D, I suppose that will rule out any upgrade to >24p 3D :( (assuming we ignore the fact that 30p can be stored in a 60i stream). If they made it so the 3D players could do formats that current players can't like 1080p48, 1080p50, 1080p60 (with or without stereoscopic), they could still include a 2D video in a format readable by current machines - ie. I don't see why they have to limit the 3D system so the left eye video stream has to be readable as the 2D version by existing players as they could include another video for current players. I know it would take more space, but it could be included on a different disc if necessary, and it would allow for the very best 3D system - one that would be able to easily play Avatar 2 :cool:

When you say "must be full HD for each eye" - do you mean 1080p - or just 1920x1080?
Doesn't the Panasonic allow 24p and 60i? If it must be "full HD" (I assume you mean 1080p?) or that is the "minimum requirement" does that mean Panasonic's 60i can't be used for the BDA's 3D and it will only allow 24p and nothing else in 3D or will they allow 48p, 60p etc. at 1920x1080? If they're making it so existing players can read the left eye's video stream and output that as 2D, I suppose that will rule out any upgrade to >24p 3D :( (assuming we ignore the fact that 30p can be stored in a 60i stream). If they made it so the 3D players could do formats that current players can't like 1080p48, 1080p50, 1080p60 (with or without stereoscopic), they could still include a 2D video in a format readable by current machines - ie. I don't see why they have to limit the 3D system so the left eye video stream has to be readable as the 2D version by existing players as they could include another video for current players. I know it would take more space, but it could be included on a different disc if necessary, and it would allow for the very best 3D system - one that would be able to easily play Avatar 2 :cool:

Full HD = 1920x1080x24P and 1920x1080x60i. . . . per eye

Those are the two resolutions to be used with the Panasonic 3D system on the BD itself. One for film based content and the other for HD-CAM content. Just like today with 2D BD.

No 30P . . . No 48P . . . . No 60P

The beauty of the Panasonic system is that they are using "off the shelf" items to get a 3D standard built for BD which also produces the highest resolution for 3D.

Full HD = 1920x1080x24P and 1920x1080x60i. . . . per eye

Those are the two resolutions to be used with the Panasonic 3D system on the BD itself. One for film based content and the other for HD-CAM content. Just like today with 2D BD.

No 30P . . . No 48P . . . . No 60P

Thanks. That sucks :(. Looks like the Blu-ray 3D system won't be able to show Avatar 2 properly :(. Is there a link anywhere where the BDA say they won't be using any of those formats (eg. 30p, 48p, 50p, 60p) for their 3D upgrade to Blu-ray?

Thanks. That sucks :(. Looks like the Blu-ray 3D system won't be able to show Avatar 2 properly :(. Is there a link anywhere where the BDA say they won't be using any of those formats (eg. 30p, 48p, 50p, 60p) for their 3D upgrade to Blu-ray?

Of course, the ideal format is 3-D/2K/48 fps projection. I'd love to have done "Avatar" at 48 frames. But I have to fight these battles one at a time. I'm just happy people are waking up to 3-D.

Maybe on "Avatar 2."

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=291076347&blogId=462314016

Since when did "maybe" become "reality?" :confused:

Panasonic Full HD 3D experience eyes-on

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/11/panasonic-full-hd-3d-experience-eyes-on/

He said that a 120hz frame rate is 8.33ms, and that is too long for the 3D.
He said what is needed is ~ 3ms or > 0.26 ms response time.I would point out that is an abstract from someone trying to sell a new technology for LCD displays and the result they achieved was a hold time of 3 ms. I see no evidence that it is necessary and the issue of hold time with LCD has been discussed dozens if not hundreds of times on the forum. LCD can do 3D at 120 Hz and there are already a few LCD computer monitors that do that.


So now we see that Sony and other lcd tv manufactures should sell only 480Hz or faster tv's for 3d if they use frame sequential technology.Considering there are people who are fine with LCD at 60 Hz can we avoid getting into a LCD vs Plasma debate? At the end of the day it is a matter of personal opinion since both technologies have advantages and issues. In other words it is a chocolate vs vanilla debate.

Richard Paul,

I understand the forum has talked about lcd hold times before.

Up till now "frame sequential 3d" has not been a topic though?
If it has then you have discussed how hold time of 120hz tv's are too slow?
Because the pdf directly states 120hz lcd tv is far too slow for frame sequential 3d.

So are you saying frame sequential/time sequential 3d has been discussed before with references?

The pdf says that even at 3ms there is crosstalk, not much but it's there.

- Remember that the pdf showed the hold time nessessary for no eye fatigue was ~ 3ms and no higher?No, what it says is that large 3D crosstalk might introduce visual fatigue and the authors of the Toshiba article never give a hold time number for that. They do state that 120 Hz LCDs would have 3D crosstalk but they never even mention 240 Hz LCDs.


Because the pdf directly states 120hz lcd tv is far too slow for frame sequential 3d.In the second article in that PDF document (http://www42.tok2.com/home/ksatsch/pdf/31_AdvancedTVand3-D(DisplaySystems).pdf) Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology technology is promoting a new LCD technology that they call OCB LCD. In that article though they never say that a standard 120 Hz LCD wouldn't work but instead that it would have 3D crosstalk. Also I have to point out that one of the main features of the OCB technology is that they use a blinking backlight system. This article (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20090604/171259/) states that OCB displays use 120 Hz LCDs.


So are you saying frame sequential/time sequential 3d has been discussed before with references?Well from what I can see your conclusion doesn't even match the references you are using and here are the conclusions of the two articles in that PDF document (http://www42.tok2.com/home/ksatsch/pdf/31_AdvancedTVand3-D(DisplaySystems).pdf) which talk about hold times for 3D LCD displays:

240 Hz LCD
MPRT of the new 240Hz LCD-TV has been measured at 4.7ms, providing a level of motion picture quality comparable to that of CRTs. Moreover, this 240Hz LCD driving technology makes it possible to deliver a full resolution 3D display by using LC shutter glasses, thereby enabling 3D to become mainstream technology for television.

120 Hz LCD with blinking backlight
We have realized high quality 3D display system using timesequential OCB LCD. This is 3D crosstalk-free, no pseudoscopy, no 3D moiré in wide viewing angle. It was achieved by fast response OCB panel, fast response OCB active shutter glasses and newly developed blinking backlight control.

1. with Panasonic format, I can still see flickering.
2. regardless of format, as long as they require LCD shutter glasses, the become more cost prohibitive (you'll need to buy a sync transmitter and a pair of glasses for each viewer -- my theatre alone sits 6 people) and the glasses are too heavy for movie-length feature. I've tried IMAX 3D with shutter glasses. Even those 30-40 minute feature are tiring for me -- due to the weight of the glasses.
3. if I suddenly have to buy new cable, new receiver, new BD player, new projector... I'm not choosing any version anytime soon. Maybe in its 3rd generation, but for the first time I won't be an early adopter.

1. with Panasonic format, I can still see flickering.

1. You can see flickering at 60 FPS per eye?

2. Flickering has nothing to do with 'the Panasonic format." It has to do with the display.

1. You can see flickering at 60 FPS per eye?

2. Flickering has nothing to do with 'the Panasonic format." It has to do with the display and shutter glasses response time.

Fixed quote by adding part in bold.
See below as to why I added the part in bold.


b.) "The demand for 3D active shutter glasses is the same as that for
the LCD panel, that is, fast response of LC. The slow LC response
shall cause the 3D-crosstalk and shortage of luminance. So we
also applied OCB to active-shutter glasses."

1. You can see flickering at 60 FPS per eye?

2. Flickering has nothing to do with 'the Panasonic format." It has to do with the display.
For the 3D system, if it's showing at 120hz (60fps per eye), isn't one of shutters on the glasses blank for 1/60th of a second, then showing an image for 1/60th of a second, then blank for another 1/60th of a second? Wouldn't that flicker?

Interpolation is not the same technology as the one in the second article.True, but both motion interpolation and backlight scanning deal with the issue of hold time and both of them reduce 3D crosstalk. Also there are already a few LCD displays that use both motion interpolation and backlight scanning such as the Toshiba ClearScan 240 LCD displays (http://hometheaterreview.com/toshiba-regza-47zv650u-lcd-hdtv-reviewed/).


From this point that even at 3ms they found crosstalk. Does it not make sense that at 4.17ms the crosstalk would be noticably worse?At 3 ms the authors of the Toshiba article state that 3D crosstalk is "very low and almost the same as the visibility thresholds". You say that it "makes sense" that 4.17 ms would be "noticeably worse" than 3 ms. Can you state for a fact that the difference would be noticeable? If the difference is noticeable can you state for a fact that the difference would be huge, moderate, or small?

You have previously said that 240 Hz 3D LCDs would cause "all kinds of eye strain", that "it hurts peoples eyes", and that it will "alienate people from 3d". Obviously you believe that there would be a noticeable difference and a huge one at that but without evidence all I see is assumptions being stated as facts. I currently have no reason to believe that 240 Hz LCDs would not be acceptable as 3D displays and Samsung believes that they would be acceptable.

For the 3D system, if it's showing at 120hz (60fps per eye), isn't one of shutters on the glasses blank for 1/60th of a second, then showing an image for 1/60th of a second, then blank for another 1/60th of a second? Wouldn't that flicker?

IMO - no - too fast. Do you see flicker watching 1080i HD?

1. You can see flickering at 60 FPS per eye?

2. Flickering has nothing to do with 'the Panasonic format." It has to do with the display.

Yes, I can still see flickering at 60 fps per eye. The flickering has to do with the LCD shutter glasses, not the display, I think. Sony shows the 120 fps per eye version, I don't see any flickering at all but the brightness uniformity throughout the frame is not perfect yet.

IMO - no - too fast. Do you see flicker watching 1080i HD?

For me, yes, but only in the periphery. The same goes with Omnimax. I see flicker in the periphery.

For me, yes, but only in the periphery. The same goes with Omnimax. I see flicker in the periphery.

I can understand flicker from film based 3D because the frame rate is only 48.

What I made was a white color video with a single black screen every 61 frames in the 60 video file. If the black screen is seen then it means the fps was not fast enough for that black screen to be unnoticable.
The goal of course is that when the black screen flickers the fps is so fast you don't notice it.
I got the idea to do this from Joe Blogs post.
He said that when the shutter closes don't you notice it since the hz is only 60? the answer is yes, look at the 60 fps video file for yourself.

Doesn't the black frame need to be every other frame of the video, not once every 61 frames? eg. for the 1/60th of a second where the left eye is showing it's image, isn't the right eye blanked out? So shouldn't the eye's footage go 1/60th a second showing a frame, 1/60th of a second showing black (blanked out), then 1/60th of a second showing a frame, etc.?

Or would the Panasonic / Blu-ray 3D system really be the equivalent of 120fps (couldn't a 120hz TV be capable of displaying that if it could accept that source)? ie. each eye's frame held for 1/120th of a second then blanked out for 1/120th of a second, then a frame shown... ie. the would the flickering be half as much as in the attached gif? It's a shame I can't test a 120fps gif/vid with frame, black, frame, black because my pc/monitor is now 60fps.

The one that will be eventually allow you to experience 3-D without the stupid glasses.

The one that will be eventually allow you to experience 3-D without the stupid glasses.

That is not a format. That is a special type of display called an Autostereoscopic 3D display. And they say the industry is between 5 and 10 years away from bringing those out to consumers at a price that is consumer firendly.

I have made video files that indeed show my point so you can see it with your very own eye

link (http://www.mediafire.com/?e2jczdimztm)

I have indeed made not one, not two, but 3 video files.
Each video file is a different fps: 60, 120, 240.

In order to play the video file you need to open the file with mplayerc, but that is in the file as well with instructions.

The 120fps file is called "240", because like David said the speed is divided up into either eye, so 120fps per eye for a 240hz lcd monitor.

What I made was a white color video with a single black screen every 61 frames in the 60 video file. If the black screen is seen then it means the fps was not fast enough for that black screen to be unnoticable.
The goal of course is that when the black screen flickers the fps is so fast you don't notice it.Do you have any evidence that this is a valid test to analyze the amount of 3D crosstalk for a display? The ability for a person to detect the flicker of a black image during white color video may have little to no relation to 3D crosstalk which is why I am asking for evidence that this is a valid test for 3D crosstalk. If this is merely an assumption you have than aren't you trying to prove your previous assumptions with a test based on another assumption?

Do you have any evidence that this is a valid test to analyze the amount of 3D crosstalk for a display? The ability for a person to detect the flicker of a black image during white color video may have little to no relation to 3D crosstalk which is why I am asking for evidence that this is a valid test for 3D crosstalk. If this is merely an assumption you have than aren't you trying to prove your previous assumptions with a test based on another assumption?
If there was 3D crosstalk on a TV, ie. the left/right eye view not changing to the right/left eye view fast enough, wouldn't one way of solving the crosstalk be to make the shutter glasses stay shut for slightly longer, ie. at the point where the crosstalk was? And if so, wouldn't that make the flicker/blanking of the video more obvious? ie. the blanking for each eye would then be for longer than a frame for that eye was being displayed.

I merged my posts about this hold time Richard and I are talking about into post #65.
I find it's easier for people to understand if they read it for the first time to merge posts that way.

Anyway, here is my reply to Richard's previous reply to me.

_______

Do you have any evidence that this is a valid test to analyze the amount of 3D crosstalk for a display? The ability for a person to detect the flicker of a black image during white color video may have little to no relation to 3D crosstalk which is why I am asking for evidence that this is a valid test for 3D crosstalk. If this is merely an assumption you have than aren't you trying to prove your previous assumptions with a test based on another assumption?

(1) "In Figure 5, it can be seen that from 0 to 17ms the left eye of the LCS glasses is transmissive and the right eye of the LCS glasses is opaque.
At about 17ms, the LCS glasses switch from one state to the other, and in the example of Figure 5 the afterglow of the phosphors is still decaying from the first field,

hence light from the left eye image will leak into the right eye producing crosstalk."

(2) "The rise time from all gray level to
black is very fast, < 0.26ms (Fig.4). This means display image
can be resetted immediately and it make no influence to next
image. In this case very small 3D crosstalk is achieved."

(3) "The more BFI that was selected, the dimmer the display became."

(4) "The slower response of LC shall
cause the 3D crosstalk and the loss of luminance."




1.) http://cmst.curtin.edu.au/publicat/2008-01_3d-plasma_woods_karvinen.pdf
page 7, section 3.4

2.) http://www42.tok2.com/home/ksatsch/pdf/31_AdvancedTVand3-D(DisplaySystems).pdf
page 6, section 2.2

3.) http://cmst.curtin.edu.au/publicat/2009-05_woods_sehic.pdf
page 4, section 5.1

4.) http://www42.tok2.com/home/ksatsch/pdf/31_AdvancedTVand3-D(DisplaySystems).pdf
page 5, section 2.2


Summary. The crosstalk and loss of luminance (1), is due to slow lc response time (4).
A sympotom of slow lc is a noticably dimmer display (3).
The speed of the display makes the crosstalk less noticable and the loss of luminance less noticable, because the black screen shown is less noticable because it disappears very fast (2).

What this tells me is that: if the black seen in the videos I made are noticable or not, it is because the black screen is less noticable due to disappearing very fast.
This is similar to the fast lc response time made the black screen less noticable (2).
By fast lc response time they mean the speed comparable to lcd's refresh time.

1.) http://cmst.curtin.edu.au/publicat/2008-01_3d-plasma_woods_karvinen.pdf
page 7, section 3.4Interesting, in this article they tested traditional 2D Plasma displays for 3D use and it notes that 3D crosstalk was between 9.9% and 38.3% depending on the Plasma display they tested. A 3D DLP projector had a 3D crosstalk of 5.5% and the article says that most of that was due to the 3D shutter glasses.


What this tells me is that: if the black seen in the videos I made are noticable or not, it is because the black screen is less noticable due to disappearing very fast.You have posted comments from various articles but none of them refer to the test you made. You are making an assumption with your test and you can't prove assumptions with more assumptions.

I am confused by everyone's reaction on this board. From my research I have a very different conclusion and I woud be interested in your feedback. From my reading about a 3D transmission standard requirements from the BD:

- BD or any broadcasting standard as it is not true anymore that HD3D will be transmitted through Blu-ray only (as Panasonic claim, a nice marketing approach), especially after the multiple 3D projects announcements such as Sky, ESPN and other heavyweights -

1. Must be Full HD for each eye

Sensio as well as Panasonic are capable of this. The issue with Panasonic seem to be that the broadband requirement is limiting this standard to Blu-Ray usage. If my understanding is good, Panasonic does not sound like a standard candidate for anything else than BD.

Sensio is the only technology capable of broadcasting a full 1080P 3D or 2D image on conventional infrastructure because of the compression method that preserve image quality.

The image quality from Sensio and Panasonic is HD3D for both of them (1080P). Sensio seem to lose some quality in the compression process but it seems to be very limited and that we would not perceive the loss (a normal human being would not, according to what I read).

2. Must be backwards compatible

A Sensio encrypted image would be compatible with any of the existing method used to transport (Blu-Ray, DVD, cable, satellite, internet,...) a signal without having to make any change or upgrade to the equipment for as long as there is a 3D TV (Sensio compatible at the other end). This mean that I would not have to upgrade my set top box or my Blu-ray player to watch a Sensio3D movie in full 3DHD, if I buy a 3DTV with Sensio built in. This is real backward compatibility: people would not have to upgrade their entire set of electronic equipments like it would be the case with the Panasonic transmission standard. Only the TV would have to integrate the Sensio decoder, this is the only change that has to be made by the customers who will buy a 3DTV anyways. I don't think that customers will want to change their TV and their BD and their cables and their set-top box,...etc... the change of the television will be important enough and it has to be easy for customers.

Sensio also has the advantage of being compatible with the transmission of live 3D events in 1080P. If my understanding is good, Panasonic would not because of the broadband issues they have. This sound like backward compatibility with the existing distribution networks.

3. Ready for 2010: Only Sensio is a ready now solution. Panasonic would only be ready for... Panasonic... as no one else have the technology to manage the signal and display it appropriately. That sounds more like a monopolistic approach than a standard. Would that serve consumers? Would that serve anybody else than Panasonic?

4. High quality cinema HD: Both Panasonic and Sensio are capable of this. I agree that the Panasonic image is mathematically better but can we really tell the difference between the two? The choice has to be logical, not mathematical.

Please jump in this discussion if you think any of my assumptions are wrong.

3Dkid

Sensio as well as Panasonic are capable of this. The issue with Panasonic seem to be that the broadband requirement is limiting this standard to Blu-Ray usage. If my understanding is good, Panasonic does not sound like a standard candidate for anything else than BD.

Do you mean the bandwidth requirement? People have said it will only be about 150% of 2D if they their current method. Couldn't broadcasters and others use a similar method to Panasonic too (if TV sets/decoders were made compatible)?

I am confused by everyone's reaction on this board. From my research I have a very different conclusion and I woud be interested in your feedback. From my reading about a 3D transmission standard requirements from the BD:

- BD or any broadcasting standard as it is not true anymore that HD3D will be transmitted through Blu-ray only (as Panasonic claim, a nice marketing approach), especially after the multiple 3D projects announcements such as Sky, ESPN and other heavyweights -

1. Must be Full HD for each eye

Sensio as well as Panasonic are capable of this. The issue with Panasonic seem to be that the broadband requirement is limiting this standard to Blu-Ray usage. If my understanding is good, Panasonic does not sound like a standard candidate for anything else than BD.

Sensio is the only technology capable of broadcasting a full 1080P 3D or 2D image on conventional infrastructure because of the compression method that preserve image quality.

The image quality from Sensio and Panasonic is HD3D for both of them (1080P). Sensio seem to lose some quality in the compression process but it seems to be very limited and that we would not perceive the loss (a normal human being would not, according to what I read).

2. Must be backwards compatible

A Sensio encrypted image would be compatible with any of the existing method used to transport (Blu-Ray, DVD, cable, satellite, internet,...) a signal without having to make any change or upgrade to the equipment for as long as there is a 3D TV (Sensio compatible at the other end). This mean that I would not have to upgrade my set top box or my Blu-ray player to watch a Sensio3D movie in full 3DHD, if I buy a 3DTV with Sensio built in. This is real backward compatibility: people would not have to upgrade their entire set of electronic equipments like it would be the case with the Panasonic transmission standard. Only the TV would have to integrate the Sensio decoder, this is the only change that has to be made by the customers who will buy a 3DTV anyways. I don't think that customers will want to change their TV and their BD and their cables and their set-top box,...etc... the change of the television will be important enough and it has to be easy for customers.

Sensio also has the advantage of being compatible with the transmission of live 3D events in 1080P. If my understanding is good, Panasonic would not because of the broadband issues they have. This sound like backward compatibility with the existing distribution networks.

3. Ready for 2010: Only Sensio is a ready now solution. Panasonic would only be ready for... Panasonic... as no one else have the technology to manage the signal and display it appropriately. That sounds more like a monopolistic approach than a standard. Would that serve consumers? Would that serve anybody else than Panasonic?

4. High quality cinema HD: Both Panasonic and Sensio are capable of this. I agree that the Panasonic image is mathematically better but can we really tell the difference between the two? The choice has to be logical, not mathematical.

Please jump in this discussion if you think any of my assumptions are wrong.

3Dkid

Your number one has not been tested by blu ray enthusiasts like xylon.

your number two is correct. Sensio would bloom while panasonic would stutter before possibly being accepted mainstream.


your number three is wrong. Sony is using panasonic 3d system.

your number four. Until it's seen it won't be believed. If they demo 3d internet, 3d tv, 3d dvd, 3d blu ray then it's just hype, and until these places start using 3d cameras the sensio advantage is really nothing to be used instantly but over a long period of time.

Back to my comments, from what I read the system that is:

1) Offering HD image quality in 3D: Sensio3D is offering a loss-less compressed signal that allows the transmission of dual 1080P pictures. They even have been integrated in a broadcast product that was demonstrated at IBC last week for the transmission of 2D or 3D 1080P60/50 signals. It is the first and only 1080P60/50 product on the market (IDC is offering the product).

There are some articles on the high quality offered by Sensio. I found one on the web some time ago and it demonstrated that it was not really possible to tell that the quality is not optimal with Sensio 3D compression.

2) Offering backward compatibility: This is the biggest advantage for Sensio: The fact that the consumers would not have to upgrade anything else than their TV to watch 3D.

This is real backward compatibility to me and no other transmission standard offer that feature.

3) With a robust technology that has a proven track record, Sensio seem to be the one that is the easiest to integrate. If they want 3D to become mainstream in 2010 and 2011 they have to go with such a technology that would allow 3DHD transmission through DVD, Blue-Ray, cable, sat., etc...

This goes beyond what Blu-Ray has to offer and they have to consider this aspect when selecting a standard, in my opinion.

4) On image quality, Sensio has been demonstrated at various conventions and covered by multiple articles and studies. Is this good enough?


My comments are based on the following article that I found useful: Bringing 3D to the home (Widescreen review, issue 138, January 2009). The last press releases from the company are probably a good indication of what they can achieve. What do you think?

Let me know if I am in the left field. It seems to me that the only system compatible with the BD requirements and what we should expect from the other standard body is Sensio (in the short term).


3Dkid

Back to my comments, from what I read the system that is:

1) Offering HD image quality in 3D: Sensio3D is offering a loss-less compressed signal that allows the transmission of dual 1080P pictures. They even have been integrated in a broadcast product that was demonstrated at IBC last week for the transmission of 2D or 3D 1080P60/50 signals. It is the first and only 1080P60/50 product on the market (IDC is offering the product).

There are some articles on the high quality offered by Sensio. I found one on the web some time ago and it demonstrated that it was not really possible to tell that the quality is not optimal with Sensio 3D compression.

2) Offering backward compatibility: This is the biggest advantage for Sensio: The fact that the consumers would not have to upgrade anything else than their TV to watch 3D.

This is real backward compatibility to me and no other transmission standard offer that feature.

3) With a robust technology that has a proven track record, Sensio seem to be the one that is the easiest to integrate. If they want 3D to become mainstream in 2010 and 2011 they have to go with such a technology that would allow 3DHD transmission through DVD, Blue-Ray, cable, sat., etc...

This goes beyond what Blu-Ray has to offer and they have to consider this aspect when selecting a standard, in my opinion.

4) On image quality, Sensio has been demonstrated at various conventions and covered by multiple articles and studies. Is this good enough?


My comments are based on the following article that I found useful: Bringing 3D to the home (Widescreen review, issue 138, January 2009). The last press releases from the company are probably a good indication of what they can achieve. What do you think?

Let me know if I am in the left field. It seems to me that the only system compatible with the BD requirements and what we should expect from the other standard body is Sensio (in the short term).


3Dkid

Bold = :confused:

SENSIO Technologies Inc., inventor of the SENSIO® 3D technology, and Sagem Communications have joined forces to premier a new 3D video solution at IBC (International Broadcasting Convention). Sagem Communications' digital set-top box, with integrated SENSIO® 3D technology, will enable consumers to view 3D content at home in full HD. The Demo at Sagem Communications’ booth (4.A080) is a first step towards commercial availability of the product planned for 2010.

Thanks to this integrated solution, service providers will soon be able to reach all subscribers, equipped with 3DTVs or not, via one and unique signal, regardless of the type of broadcast network. Since the set-top box is agnostic to any type of 3D display technology implemented within TVs, it can support any type of 2D or 3D TVs thus allowing service providers to easily migrate from 2D to 3D services. Furthermore, service providers will not require duplicating the broadcast of content in order to address various subscriber TV sets. All that will be required is to broadcast the content in 3D over their existing network while the set-top box processes the incoming signal and adapts it to the type of TV which is connected to it.

What that is saying is if you have a 2DTV - you will see 2D content. If you have a 3DTV, then you will see 3D content. It doesn't say that if you have a 2DTV, you will see 3D.

Exactly, this is backward compatibility. This is in my opinion the biggest strength for Sensio. You do not need to upgrade everything you have if it is integrated.

You get a HD3D signal and you do not need to buy a new BD player. If you have a 2D TV you can watch a 1080P signal (no other 2D formatr allow that) and if you have a 3D TV you can enjoy a 3D 1080P visual experience.

This seems to be a very versatile technology and from what they say it is compatible with all 3DTV technology and all the display method that exist (and all resolutions).

3DKid

At first, BDA should commercialize production of BD-100s.

Exactly, this is backward compatibility. This is in my opinion the biggest strength for Sensio. You do not need to upgrade everything you have if it is integrated.

You get a HD3D signal and you do not need to buy a new BD player. If you have a 2D TV you can watch a 1080P signal (no other 2D formatr allow that) and if you have a 3D TV you can enjoy a 3D 1080P visual experience.

This seems to be a very versatile technology and from what they say it is compatible with all 3DTV technology and all the display method that exist (and all resolutions).

3DKid

There is nothing to prevent The Panasoinc 3D system becoming the standard for BD and rthe Sensio 3D system becoming the standard for "broadcast" 3D TV. It may very well turn out that way. Panasonic has already invented a new compact 3D camera for 3D capture:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/panasonic-3d-hd-camcorder-prototype.jpg

At first, BDA should commercialize production of BD-100s.

Panasonic and Sony want 3D in the marketplace by Q4 2010. Too soon for a BD with more than 2 layers to be put into production.

Panasonic and Sony want 3D in the marketplace by Q4 2010. Too soon for a BD with more than 2 layers to be put into production.

Good point. Do you think that this by itself is a good enough reason to select Sensio format for Blu-Ray disk as you do not need to produce new Blu-Ray with the Sensio standard.

With Sensio, you simply have to put your 3D Blu-Ray disk in the existing Blu-Ray machines and it gets to the decoder in the TV. Easy integration with the TV makes quick market access to 3D. With Sensio, 3D could be mainstream in a few months, don't you think?

3Dkid

(I think that Sensio format for broadcast is a no brainer, with what you are saying I think that Sensio would also make quicker mass production 3D entry into home.. no brainer for Blu-Ray as well)

Good point. Do you think that this by itself is a good enough reason to select Sensio format for Blu-Ray disk as you do not need to produce new Blu-Ray with the Sensio standard.

With Sensio, you simply have to put your 3D Blu-Ray disk in the existing Blu-Ray machines and it gets to the decoder in the TV. Easy integration with the TV makes quick market access to 3D. With Sensio, 3D could be mainstream in a few months, don't you think?

3Dkid

(I think that Sensio format for broadcast is a no brainer, with what you are saying I think that Sensio would also make quicker mass production 3D entry into home.. no brainer for Blu-Ray as well)

Panasonics 3D system is the front runner for the 3D standard for BD. They are also a major patent holder in BD.

Are you suggesting that the decision by the BD association was made? :confused:Yes. The work is now in the details.

Yes. The work is now in the details.


1) Offering HD image quality in 3D: Sensio3D is offering a ... signal that allows the transmission of dual 1080P pictures. They even have been integrated in a broadcast product that was demonstrated at IBC last week for the transmission of 2D or 3D 1080P60/50 signals. It is the first and only 1080P60/50 product on the market (IDC is offering the product).

When the BDA are filling in the details of the spec, will they be able to do what the Sensio 3D system can do (highlighted in bold above)? Are they going to include what the directors of the biggest budget 3D productions have been asking for and producing in re: frame rates? (JC 48p, PJ 60p, IMAGO members 60p)?

When the BDA are filling in the details of the spec, will they be able to do what the Sensio 3D system can do (highlighted in bold above)? Are they going to include what the directors of the biggest budget 3D productions have been asking for and producing in re: frame rates? (JC 48p, PJ 60p, IMAGO members 60p)?

Joe:

What are the approved frame rates currently in the BD specs? Aren't they 24P and 60i (in the USA)?

How many Hollywood movies have been shot in 48 or 60 FPS?

The BDA has already said they are fast tracking the 3D standard for BD. That means they are going by the KISS principal.

If in the future, movies start to be filmed in frame rates higher than 24, I am sure that the BDA will revisit the BD specs. Just like they are revisiting the specs to include 3D.

Panasonics 3D system is the front runner for the 3D standard for BD. They are also a major patent holder in BD.


If I understand correctly they will decide to go with the Pana standard even if the technology is not ideal for the consumers and will not allow a quick market adoption with the reason being nothing else than Pana being a major patent holder in the Blu-ray technology. They have to be smarter than this.

To illustrate how bizarre that is: I paid close to $2000 for my Marantz Blu-ray player and I will have to buy another one for my 3D viewing? That would not be the case with the Sensio standard and the quality would be the same.

I have a hard time following how they take decisions and I still don't understand why they would ask for Pana. There has to be something else than Pana being a patent holder, there must be something I don't get. 3Dkid

Where are they in the details? What is left for them to decide if they know in which direction to go?

If I understand correctly they will decide to go with the Pana standard even if the technology is not ideal for the consumers and will not allow a quick market adoption with the reason being nothing else than Pana being a major patent holder in the Blu-ray technology. They have to be smarter than this.

To illustrate how bizarre that is: I paid close to $2000 for my Marantz Blu-ray player and I will have to buy another one for my 3D viewing? That would not be the case with the Sensio standard and the quality would be the same.

I have a hard time following how they take decisions and I still don't understand why they would ask for Pana. There has to be something else than Pana being a patent holder, there must be something I don't get. 3Dkid

1. The Panasonic 3D system offers the highest quality 3D using the current specs of BD. And it is fully backwards compatible with all BD players in consumer homes. They all can extract a 2D verison from the 3D encode. That also means not having to rebuy a 3D BD once they decide (if they do) to invest in 3D equipment.

2. The CEM's want to sell NEW equipment - displays and BD players (and the PS3 can do a FW UP to make it a 3D BD player - according to Sony).

3. The two giants involved in BD are Sony and Panasonic and they both want the proposed 3D system.

Where are they in the details? What is left for them to decide if they know in which direction to go?

If the BDA is anything like the DVD Forum (which I believe it is), then they have to go through a bunch of procedures/processes which included things like testing, verification, a short replication run which is usually done by a third party. Then they gather up all the paperwork (lots of it) and go over it at a Board of Directors meeting which is held either semi-annually or quarterly where they will vote on the finding.

Where are they in the details? What is left for them to decide if they know in which direction to go?Getting 3D video is only a portion of it. Everything else is also affected to some degree, such as subtitles, menus, BD-J, determing how to re-format to various 3DTVs, how to take into account viewing distance/angles and screen size, multiple viewers, etc. Much of this requires lots of math analysis and lots of test content with various proposed solutions to be evaluated. Things also have to fit into the work flow used to make the 3D movies.

Joe:

What are the approved frame rates currently in the BD specs? Aren't they 24P and 60i (in the USA)?

How many Hollywood movies have been shot in 48 or 60 FPS?

The BDA has already said they are fast tracking the 3D standard for BD. That means they are going by the KISS principal.

If in the future, movies start to be filmed in frame rates higher than 24, I am sure that the BDA will revisit the BD specs. Just like they are revisiting the specs to include 3D.
Why do you want to limit the Blu-ray 3D specs? I thought in the past you said you wanted the Panasonic system to be selected because it was technically the best. The Sensio system can apparently use 1080p50 and 1080p60. From a technical perspective isn't that better than 1080i50/1080i60 and 1080p24?

I've talked about the directors and cinematographers who are either using or asking for higher fps (and the cinematographers who fought hard to get 1080p60 added to the digital cinema specs - and succeeded). Obviously TV work is going to go 1080p50/60. The Sensio 3D system can do that. These has been added to the digital cinema specs.

Nine Inch Nails: Beside You in Time: recorded at 1080p30. Not in Blu-ray specs.
Various HD Scape titles on Blu-ray claim to be shot at "1080p60".
Oklahoma! shot at 30fps.
Around the World in 80 Days shot at 30fps

Many TV series shot 1080p25. In Blu-ray spec: no.

Obviously concerts and stuff currently shot at 1080i will in future be at 1080p60 etc. Why would consumers want a lower technical standard?

James Cameron has said he would like films shot at 48fps and "maybe on Avatar 2". He has said given his opinions on frame rates multiple times, before even Avatar 1 has been released, before the 3D Blu-ray standards have been set, so now is the time to be setting these standards.

James Cameron (Promoter of the Panasonic 3D Blu-ray system) quotes:
For three-fourths of a century of 2-D cinema, we have grown accustomed to the strobing effect produced by the 24 frame per second display rate. When we see the same thing in 3-D, it stands out more, not because it is intrinsically worse, but because all other things have gotten better. Suddenly the image looks so real it's like you're standing there in the room with the characters, but when the camera pans, there is this strange motion artifact. It's like you never saw it before, when in fact it's been hiding in plain sight the whole time. Some people call it judder, others strobing. I call it annoying.

...people have been asking the wrong question for years. They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate. Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second ... with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won't. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don't solve them at all.
"I would vastly prefer to see 48 frames per second as a new display standard, than 24 frames per second."

Peter Jackson has shot his King Kong thing in 60fps 3D. I know it's not a full length feature film, but what if he wanted to have clips of it in bonus features of a later re-release of King Kong on Blu-ray

Why do you want the BD upgrade (3D) system to have lower technical standards than it could have (not having capabilities that the Sensio system has)?

As seen in my reply to you post #92. There is a problem that stems from slow lc time.
What is that problem? (4).
How did they fix it? (2), They took the 120Hz hold time and made it 3ms.

Do you agree with this?Do I agree that going from a hold time of 8.33 ms to 3 ms is an improvement? Sure, and all I am saying is that going from 8.33 ms to 4.7 ms is an improvement as well and that both Samsung and Sony seem to believe that it will produce acceptable 3D video.

1. Must be Full HD for each eye

Sensio as well as Panasonic are capable of this.Sensio promotes that their 3D method delivers more resolution than half resolution methods but even they admit that it "does not perfectly restore the original image". From what I have read Sensio is a more complex version of the half resolution method (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=16890233&postcount=469) (left side for left eye and right side for right eye) which also encodes additional horizontal information in "features the consumer would not normally see". I would like to know exactly what percentage of horizontal resolution that Sensio delivers on average with a known movie but I have yet to find any details like that.


Sensio seem to lose some quality in the compression process but it seems to be very limited and that we would not perceive the loss (a normal human being would not, according to what I read).A spokesman for Sensio has claimed "that most viewers cannot tell the difference between the two signal paths". That sounds good but a properly done third party test would be the best way to find out if that holds up in practice.


2. Must be backwards compatible

A Sensio encrypted image would be compatible with any of the existing method used to transport (Blu-Ray, DVD, cable, satellite, internet,...) a signal without having to make any change or upgrade to the equipment for as long as there is a 3D TV (Sensio compatible at the other end).True, but you would than have to encode two completely separate video encodings for the movie on the Blu-ray disc since one of the BDA requirements (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=17111331&postcount=3917) was that both the 2D version and 3D version of the movie would be on the same disc.


3. Ready for 2010: Only Sensio is a ready now solution.True, but at the moment I think you would have to buy a 3D Sensio processor which has an MSRP of $3000 (http://www.hometheatermag.com/accessories/1103sensio/). I don't think that the Hyundai 3D TVs that have a built in Sensio processor have been released yet though they are supposed to come out later this year.

Why do you want to limit the Blu-ray 3D specs? I thought in the past you said you wanted the Panasonic system to be selected because it was technically the best. The Sensio system can apparently use 1080p50 and 1080p60. From a technical perspective isn't that better than 1080i50/1080i60 and 1080p24?

I've talked about the directors and cinematographers who are either using or asking for higher fps (and the cinematographers who fought hard to get 1080p60 added to the digital cinema specs - and succeeded). Obviously TV work is going to go 1080p50/60. The Sensio 3D system can do that. These has been added to the digital cinema specs.

Nine Inch Nails: Beside You in Time: recorded at 1080p30. Not in Blu-ray specs.
Various HD Scape titles on Blu-ray claim to be shot at "1080p60".
Oklahoma! shot at 30fps.
Around the World in 80 Days shot at 30fps

Many TV series shot 1080p25. In Blu-ray spec: no.

Obviously concerts and stuff currently shot at 1080i will in future be at 1080p60 etc. Why would consumers want a lower technical standard?

James Cameron has said he would like films shot at 48fps and "maybe on Avatar 2". He has said given his opinions on frame rates multiple times, before even Avatar 1 has been released, before the 3D Blu-ray standards have been set, so now is the time to be setting these standards.

Peter Jackson has shot his King Kong thing in 60fps 3D. I know it's not a full length feature film, but what if he wanted to have clips of it in bonus features of a later re-release of King Kong on Blu-ray

Why do you want the BD upgrade (3D) system to have lower technical standards than it could have (not having capabilities that the Sensio system has)?

Do you understand the phrase "fast track?"

All you mention are directors. I don't see any STUDIOS that are asking for higher frame rates - do you?

Are you aware that the studios are investigating something called 2 Perf 35mm? Why? Because it saves them money over 4 Perf 35mm. They are looking to save money not spend it.

And it is obvious that they want one new tech at a time and right now that tech is 3D.

I repeat - there is nothing to prevent the BDA from once again revising the BD specs - WHEN IT IS NEEDED . . . . not just in case.;)

The Sensio system can apparently use 1080p50 and 1080p60.For the Sensio 3D method to do that the source device has to be capable of decoding 1080p50/60.

Do you understand the phrase "fast track?"

So now you don't want a system with the best technical specs - you want the one that can be made the fastest?

All you mention are directors.

I didn't just mention directors, I mentioned cinematographers too. The people who make the films, etc.

I don't see any STUDIOS that are asking for higher frame rates - do you?
http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/05/05/1080p-60-fps-production-confirmed-for-espns-new-l-a-studio/
Colleen Lynch of ESPN and confirmed the new equipment is designed for 1080p at 60 frames per second

I could give more quotes from studios/broadcasters if you want. Or are you only looking for quotes from film studios - are they going to stop putting TV productions on Blu-ray? Isn't it the directors and cinematographers who make those sort of decisions about how their production is shot/how it will look and the studios give them the go-ahead or not? If Avatar is successful why wouldn't they let the director shoot the way he wants?

For the Sensio 3D method to do that the source device has to be capable of decoding 1080p50/60.
Do you mean the TV? My 2D TV can accept both of those uncompressed. Or do you mean the TV has to decode a compressed signal :confused:

So now you don't want a system with the best technical specs - you want the one that can be made the fastest?

It is not what I want - it is what the powers that be want. And the Panasonic 3D system does offer the highest quality 3D for BD.

I didn't just mention directors, I mentioned cinematraphers too. The people who make the films, etc.

And who hires them and gives them the money to make those films? The studios do. . . . "He who holds the gold makes the rules." ;)

http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/05/05/1080p-60-fps-production-confirmed-for-espns-new-l-a-studio/

And which service is going to give up bandwidth to distribute 60P? Got to be CBL, SAT or TELCO.

I could give more quotes from studios/broadcasters if you want. Or are you only looking for quotes from film studios? Isn't it the directors and cinematographers who make those sort of decisions about how their production is shot/how it will look and the studios give them the go-ahead or not? If Avatar is successful why wouldn't they let the director shoot the way he wants?

Seen the news about the new 4th Pirates Of The Carribean movie? Just announced - they are cutting the budget SUBSTANTIALLY.

In 5 years, the Digital Cinema Implementation will be finished. That will mean more than 18,000 DC's in the USA. But that is less than half of all the movie screens in the USA.

Maybe at that time, faster frame rates will be revisited.

Do you mean the TV? My 2D TV can accept both of those uncompressed. Or do you mean the TV has to decode a compressed signal :confused:

I believe he means the STB.

It is not what I want - it is what the powers that be want. And the Panasonic 3D system does offer the highest quality 3D for BD.

Maybe. Maybe not. The Sensio 3D system can do 1080p50 & 1080p60. The Panasonic 3D system can do half that at 1080i25 & 1080i30. The ability to have double the number of pixels/lines per second is a higher technical standard than one that can only do half the number of pixels/lines per second. The BDA could create a 3D system that had the best capabilities of all systems and more - eg. Take the capabilties of of the Panasonic system (full HD per eye), add the capabilitiies of the Sensio 3D system (capability of decoding 1080p50 and 1080p60 stereoscopic) and create the best 3D system. Success!

Maybe. Maybe not. The Sensio 3D system can do 1080p50 & 1080p60. The Panasonic 3D system can do half that at 1080i25 & 1080i30. The ability to have double the number of pixels/lines per second is a higher technical standard than one that can only do half the number of pixels/lines per second. The BDA could create a 3D system that had the best capabilities of all systems and more - eg. Take the capabilties of of the Panasonic system (full HD per eye), add the capabilitiies of the Sensio 3D system (capability of decoding 1080p50 and 1080p60 stereoscopic) and create the best 3D system. Success!

It is not the job of the BDA to "create a 3D system." It is their job to evaluate and choose the best 3D system that fits the specifications and guidelines that they have set forth.

And the Panasonic system does just that.

Do you mean the TV? My 2D TV can accept both of those uncompressed. Or do you mean the TV has to decode a compressed signalI was referring to the source device which in the case of the IBC demonstration was the STB. The reason Sensio could do 1080p50/60 with the IBC demonstration was because the STB was capable of decoding 1080p50/60.


Maybe. Maybe not. The Sensio 3D system can do 1080p50 & 1080p60. The Panasonic 3D system can do half that at 1080i25 & 1080i30.The Sensio 3D method is limited to the frame rate of the source device so with Blu-ray it would support the same frame rates that Blu-ray does. Also the Panasonic 3D method has to be limited to the frame rates of Blu-ray to insure backward compatibility of the baseline MPEG-4 AVC MVC video stream (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=17116763&postcount=33) so that current Blu-ray players can decode it.


The BDA could create a 3D system that had the best capabilities of all systems and moreSure, if the BDA was willing to completely break backward compatibility with the 3D version of Blu-ray they could add a lot of neat stuff to Blu-ray but they decided (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=17111331&postcount=3917) that they wanted a 3D method that was backward compatible.

Sure, if the BDA was willing to completely break backward compatibility with the 3D version of Blu-ray they could add a lot of neat stuff to Blu-ray but they decided (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=17111331&postcount=3917) that they wanted a 3D method that was backward compatible.
Article quote:
meaning that 3D discs will also include a 2D version of the film that can be viewed on existing 2D players and 3D players will enable consumers to playback their existing libraries of 2D content

They don't need to encode so that the existing players are able to read one of the streams to output a 2D version. They say "3D discs will also include a 2D version of the film that can be played on 2D players". They could just encode a totally separate 2D version onto one of the discs in the case for existing 2D players to play back, but add lots of new capabilities (including some I mentioned above) to the format that the new 3D profile capable players would be able to read.

They could just encode a totally separate 2D version onto one of the discs in the case for existing 2D players to play back, but add lots of new capabilities (including some I mentioned above) to the format that the new 3D profile capable players would be able to read.No space for a separate 2D stream without reducing video quality. Adding lots of new capabilities would take at least 2 years by the time the technologies are evaluated, specs written, conformance stuff made, etc. Then at least one year later you'd see players on the market.

No space for a separate 2D stream without reducing video quality. Adding lots of new capabilities would take at least 2 years by the time the technologies are evaluated, specs written, conformance stuff made, etc. Then at least one year later you'd see players on the market.
Does it have to be on the same disc? If it was going to be a long production where doing 2 totally separate encodes would mean lower quality if on one disc, couldn't they include a 2D/current player compatible disc and a 3D disc for new players?

eg. Avatar 2 (if shot at 48fps stereoscopic).
Disc 1. 2D version, 24p, monoscopic.
Disc 2. 3D version, 48p, stereoscopic.

And aren't the chips already available for 1080p60? Isn't it easier for encoders to encode/decode 1080p than 1080i? It's sad about the time-frame and that we can't have the new capabilities in the specs.

----------
But under the current 3D specs they are working on, if the specs support 1080p24 in stereoscopic (to a stereoscopic TV), could you encode 1080p48 2D video into the Blu-ray 3D format and watch it without glasses to get 2D 1080p48? Similar question for 1080p60 - would it be technically possible to encode a 1080p60 2D stream, under the current 3D Blu-ray specs as 2x 60i streams and watch it without shutter glasses on a stereoscopic TV and it would actually be showing 1080p60 2D video?

Does it have to be on the same disc? If it was going to be a long production where doing 2 totally separate encodes would mean lower quality if on one disc, couldn't they include a 2D/current player compatible disc and a 3D disc for new players?

eg. Avatar 2 (if shot at 48fps stereoscopic).
Disc 1. 2D version, 24p, monoscopic.
Disc 2. 3D version, 48p, stereoscopic.

And aren't the chips already available for 1080p60? Isn't it easier for encoders to encode/decode 1080p than 1080i? It's sad about the time-frame and that we can't have the new capabilities in the specs.

----------
But under the current 3D specs they are working on, if the specs support 1080p24 in stereoscopic (to a stereoscopic TV), could you encode 1080p48 2D video into the Blu-ray 3D format and watch it without glasses to get 2D 1080p48? Similar question for 1080p60 - would it be technically possible to encode a 1080p60 2D stream, under the current 3D Blu-ray specs as 2x 60i streams and watch it without shutter glasses on a stereoscopic TV and it would actually be showing 1080p60 2D video?

Standard Technology

And, in fact, the technologies proposed by Panasonic for 3D imagery storage, transfer, etc, all utilize existing standard technology. Image encoding uses the two-channel encoding function implemented in Moving Picture Coding Experts Group Phase 4 Advanced Video Coding (MPEG-4 AVC) H.264. The second channel stores only the data different from channel one, holding the increase in data volume to about 1.5 times. The HDMI standard is used to transfer data from the player to the television, with left- and right-eye images alternated in single-field (single-frame) units. “All we have to do is define a flag to identify image data, equipment and other elements supporting 3D imagery. We really don’t need any other major changes,” explained Hiroshi Miyai, director, High Quality AV Development Center of Panasonic

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/HONSHI/20081030/160508/

You can't get constant 48 FPS for 2D out of that kind of an encode.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/HONSHI/20081030/160508/

The second channel stores only the data different from channel one, holding the increase in data volume to about 1.5 times

You can't get constant 48 FPS for 2D out of that kind of an encode.

Why?

2D video at 48fps:
frame 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10...

You encode it into a 1080p24 stereoscopic 3D stream:
Stream 1 holds 2D frames: 1,3,5,7,9...
Stream 2 holds 2D frames: 2,4,6,8,10... (the 2nd stream is really holding the difference between 2D frames 2 and frame 1, then difference between 2D frames 4 and 3, etc. - as they are only 1 frame apart there should be hardly any difference so it should be easy to encode).

You watch without LCD shutter glasses. Wouldn't the stereoscopic TV show 2D frames 1,2,3,4,5...10... ie. equivalent of 1080p48 in 2D?

The BBC doing their high frame rate 2D video tests/demonstrations ran them on a TV designed for stereoscopic 3D so in theory it should work.

Why?

2D video at 48fps:
frame 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10...

You encode it into a 1080p24 stereoscopic 3D stream:
Stream 1 holds 2D frames: 1,3,5,7,9...
Stream 2 holds 2D frames: 2,4,6,8,10... (or the 2nd stream is really holding the difference between frames 2 and frames 1 etc. - as they are only 1 frame apart there should be hardly any difference so it should be easy to encode).

You watch without LCD shutter glasses. Wouldn't the stereoscopic TV show 2D frames 1,2,3,4,5...10... ie. equivalent of 1080p48 in 2D?

You are assumming a scenerio of orderly frame progression. We are talking about movies here - some scenes - the action is constantly changing while other scenes - very little changes. You are missing 50% of the data. You are taking a simple system and making it very complex - for no purpose. . .

The purpose of the two streams is to provide a 3D movie and a 2D movie all on the same disc. Not to provide a 2D movie at 48 FPS which really has no value because most of the high Hz displays are 120 Hz and 48 doesn't fit into 120 evenly.

EDIT:

Plus the cameras aren't capturing the images at 48 FPS native. You can already do what you are proposing with todays HDTV's - the 120 Hz models. They are taking 24 FPS and displaying it at 120.

The purpose of the two streams is to provide a 3D movie and a 2D movie all on the same disc. Not to provide a 2D movie at 48 FPS which really has no value because most of the high Hz displays are 120 Hz and 48 doesn't fit into 120 evenly.
The 120hz TVs won't be able to show 24p stereoscopic evenly either - if encoded using the proposed 3D system. It will mean a return to 3:2 pull-down judder for all 24p 3D movies if watched on a 120hz TV. But won't a 120hz TV will be able to show a 48p 2D movie as well as a 60hz TV can show a 24p 2D movie?

EDIT:

Plus the cameras aren't capturing the images at 48 FPS native. You can already do what you are proposing with todays HDTV's - the 120 Hz models. They are taking 24 FPS and displaying it at 120.
The cameras that Mr. Cameron tested that he talked about in the article captured at 48fps native (and stereoscopic). Though I'd prefer they went for 1080p50 or 1080p60.
I was asking Kjack/others whether in theory it would work (encoding it like that in stereo 3D), and whether the same method could be used for storing 1080p50/p60 productions on Blu-ray in theory. The problem would be the backwards (or forward?) compatibility with current non-3D capable players :(. It might be that the BDA wouldn't allow encoding 2D like that even if it worked because of compatibility. Or...

Maybe it would be compatible with current players - just not as high quality?

eg. let's say in theory there's a film/TV programme shot at 48fps in 2D.
Use my method above to store it in 2 seperate streams (stream 1 holds frames 1,3,5,7,9... stream 2 holds frames 2 (diff between 2 and 1 really), 4 (diff between 4 and 3 really)...

If you play it on the new 3D players to a compatible TV you get 48fps in 2D.
If you play it on a current player, which only reads stream 1, you get frames 1,3,5,7,9... of the 48fps which should give equivalent of 24fps (2D).

The 120hz TVs won't be able to show 24p stereoscopic evenly either - if encoded using the proposed 3D system. It will mean a return to 3:2 pull-down judder for all 24p 3D movies if watched on a 120hz TV. But won't a 120hz TV will be able to show a 48p 2D movie as well as a 60hz TV can show a 24p 2D movie?

Page 6:

http://www.nabanet.com/nabaweb/documents/agms/2009/P1_PFannon.pdf

Page 6:

http://www.nabanet.com/nabaweb/documents/agms/2009/P1_PFannon.pdf
What am I supposed to be looking at? Is their TV a 240hz TV or a 120hz TV?

Are you saying that a 120hz TV can show a 24p stereoscopic movie in their system with no 3:2 pull-down judder, but the same 120hz TV won't be able to show a 48p 2D movie without pull-down judder? 24p stereoscopic is the same number of frames as 48p 2D.

120/48=2.5
120/(24*2 for stereoscopic)=2.5

A 120hz TV would give pull-down judder for both of the above.

I updated post #65 with this reply.

______________________________


Richard Paul,

As seen in my reply to you post #92. There is a problem that stems from slow lc time.
What is that problem? (4).
How did they fix it? (2), They took the 120Hz hold time and made it 3ms.

Do you agree with this?

Do I agree that going from a hold time of 8.33 ms to 3 ms is an improvement? Sure, and all I am saying is that going from 8.33 ms to 4.7 ms is an improvement as well and that both Samsung and Sony seem to believe that it will produce acceptable 3D video.

Fair enough. We wait to see.

What am I supposed to be looking at? Is their TV a 240hz TV or a 120hz TV?

Are you saying that a 120hz TV can show a 24p stereoscopic movie in their system with no 3:2 pull-down judder, but the same 120hz TV won't be able to show a 48p 2D movie without pull-down judder? 24p stereoscopic is the same number of frames as 48p 2D.

120/48=2.5
120/(24*2 for stereoscopic)=2.5

A 120hz TV would give pull-down judder for both of the above.

You are not understanding how the Panasonic 3D system works.

Go to this link and on the right side there is a small image - click on it to get it to readable size. It explains what is going on:

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/HONSHI/20081030/160508/

You would use this instead for what Lee Stewart wanted.

240/48
240/(24*2 for stereoscopic)

or

480/48
480/(24*2 for stereoscopic)

or

720/48
720/(24*2 for stereoscopic)

That is also not correct - see the link above

You are not understanding how the Panasonic 3D system works.

Go to this link and on the right side there is a small image - click on it to get it to readable size. It explains what is going on:

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/HONSHI/20081030/160508/
I stand by my statement. A 120hz TV can't show 24px2 (stereoscopic) images per second without pull-down judder. 24x2=48. 48 doesn't go evenly into 120 no matter what some web page says. Please state in words or maths how 24*2 (ie. 48) will go evenly into 120.

Here is what you are supposed to be looking at:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x66/LeeAStewart/fig1.jpg

I stand by my statement. A 120hz TV can't show 24p x2 stereoscopic images per second without pull-down judder. 24x2=48. 48 doesn't go evenly into 120 no matter what some web page says. Please state in words or maths how 24*2 (ie. 48) will go evenly into 120.

It is NOT 24 X 2. It is a SINGLE DATA STREAM.

The stream is 24P and the 3D DISPLAY is upping it to 120 (24 X 5) and then the shutter glasses work in conjunction with the refresh rate.

It is NOT dual stream - it is dual channel. Dual stream is PIP (Bonus View)

That diagram doesn't state how a 120hz TV can show 24x2 (48) without motion judder. 120/48 doesn't go. 120/48=2.5. Therefore pull-down judder.

It is NOT 24 X 2. It is a SINGLE DATA STREAM. The images are side by side within each frame.

The stream is 24P and the 3D DISPLAY is upping it to 120 (24 X 5) and then the shutter glasses work in conjunction with the refresh rate.
I'm not talking about the Blu-ray player. Forget that side totally. I'm just talking about the TV. You stated that a 120hz TV could display stereoscopic 24p TV with no pull-down judder. I state again it cannot. It is not 24x5 since there are 2 images to show every 1/24th of a second because it is stereoscopic. 120/48=2.5.

That diagram doesn't state how a 120hz TV can show 24x2 (48) without motion judder. 120/48 doesn't go. 120/48=2.5. Therefore pull-down judder.

No Joe - the images are coming off the BD player at 24P. There is no 24 x2 = 48. The stream is ALWAYS 24P. There are alternating images that the TV's buffer accepts, then the images are boosted up to 120.

No Joe - the images are coming off the BD player at 24P. There is no 24 x2 = 48. The stream is ALWAYS 24P. There are alternating images that the TV's buffer accepts, then the images are boosted up to 120.
Again I'm talking about the TV only. Not the BD player. Not what is in a stream. Only how a 120hz TV can (not) show 24p stereo without pull-down judder when using shutter glasses.

So the 120hz TV shows alternating images? So for a 24p Stereoscopic film, shown on that TV, where the LCD glasses will have to open the left then the right eye part of the glasses. How many actual frames per second will that TV be displaying - only 24 or 48? How can you show, using LCD shutter glasses and a TV only showing 24 images per second, stereoscopic 24fps?

The TV will be showing:
Frame 1 left, then Frame 1 right, then Frame 2 left...etc. 24 Stereoscopic Frames per second. It will need to show a left frame then it will need to show a right frame. So this doubles the number of frames it will need to show every second in comparison to 2D TVs. A 120hz Tv can show 24p with no pull-down judder because it's only showing 2D - not a left and then a right eye view. If you need to show a left eye then a right eye view that's different, and you'll get judder on a 120hz TV when showing 24p stereoscopic content if showing each stereoscopic image (left/right) separately.

I see what he's saying Joe blogs.
The 120hz tv would show 60 frames.
Because each frame uses 1Hz and you need 2Hz for 1 frame.

He's reasoning that since 60fps goes into 120hz evenly, then the 24fps the 60hz is piecing together wouldn't have 3:2 pulldown.

Correct - the key is alternating frames. That is the method used for shutter glasses.

So the 120hz TV shows alternating images? So for a 24p Stereoscopic film, shown on that TV, where the LCD glasses will have to open the left then the right eye part of the glasses. How many actual frames per second will that TV be displaying - only 24 or 48? How can you show, using LCD shutter glasses and a TV only showing 24 images per second, stereoscopic 24fps?

here is the math . . .

24P leaving the BD player . . . into the display which boosts the frame rate to 120P which syncs with the glasses to show 60P per eye

here is the math . . .

24P leaving the BD player . . . into the display which boosts the frame rate to 120P which syncs with the glasses to show 60P per eye
60p per eye. So how can each eye watch a 24p movie without pull-down judder?

60/24=2.5

It's just like watching a 2D movie on a 60hz TV. 60/24=2.5 therefore pull-down judder.

60p per eye. So how can each eye watch a 24p movie without pull-down judder?

60/24=2.5

It is 60P per eye at 120 Hz

There is no pulldown.

What Joe Blogs is saying is that the 120Hz tv becomes a 60Hz tv when you use the panasonic 3d

And that 60Hz tv showing 24fps source video will behave like a 60Hz monitor showing 24fps source video. When 60Hz monitors show 24fps source video there is 3:2 pulldown.

I think Joe Blogs understands that there is:
a single frame shown at different angles.
These two single frames shown at different angles join together to form one single frame,
And this frame goes into 24fps source video.

This is not a case of a 60 hz display showing 24P content. It is a 120 hz display showing 24P content. No pulldown is used or needed.

It is 60P per eye at 120 Hz

There is no pulldown.
No not at 120hz. The TV is outputing 120hz, but the left (or right) eye only sees 60p. There's shutter glasses covering the picture for the other half of the frames isn't it? - otherwise the left eye would incorrectly see the view intended for the right eye?

So the left eye sees 60 images per second (the others are blanked out by the shutter glasses). 60/24=2.5 = pull-down judder.

I just read your previous reply on the other page.

Your saying that once the source video leaves the blu ray player, the monitor makes the source video 60P through making the source 120fps.

This 60p then goes into the 60p shutter glasses and so there is no pulldown. Brilliant!

I never saw that the monitor changes the 24p source video, but you did. :D

Edit, but the tv would make the video from the blu ray player 60p, since there is 2Hz for every frame from the blu ray player.

No - the monitor makes the source 120P and the glasses make it 60P per eye

No not at 120hz. The TV is outputing 120hz, but the left (or right) eye only sees 60p. There's shutter glasses covering the picture for the other half of the frames isn't it? - otherwise the left eye would incorrectly see the view intended for the right eye?

So the left eye sees 60 images per second (the others are blanked out by the shutter glasses). 60/24=2.5 = pull-down judder.

:rolleyes:

24 X 5 = 120 then divided by 2 = 60

:rolleyes:

24 X 5 = 120 then divided by 2 = 60
So is the ":rolleyes:" meant to say that my post was incorrect. If so please show me where I'm wrong. Please correct me if I've got the way the TV & LCD shutter glasses work incorrect. Are the shutter glasses not blanking the way I described - if so how?

Isn't the TV if using the shutter glasses method (again forget whatever method it's stored on the disc or sent via a cable to the TV) required to go:
Frame 1 Left, then Frame 1 Right, etc.?

Isn't it supposed to show both of those within 1/24th of a second if it's a 1080p24 stereoscopic movie?

So when it's shown Frame 1 Left - shouldn't 1/48th of a second have elapsed? So if the TV is supposed to show Frame 1 Left within 1/48th of a second, doesn't that mean the TV would really be trying to show 48 separate images per second? And can a 120hz TV display 48 separate images per second without pull-down judder?

So is the ":rolleyes:" meant to say that my post was incorrect. If so please show me where I'm wrong. Please correct me if I've got the way the TV shutter glasses work incorrect.

I just did! Here it is again:

24 X 5 = 120 then divided by 2 = 60. The "divided by 2 = 60" are the glasses.

These are NOT like 2D HDTVs (120 hz). They will have special circuitry in them.

So when it's shown Frame 1 Left - shouldn't 1/48th of a second have elapsed?

No - it is 1/60th of a second. You are confusing the data stream - which is now 120 and not 24.

I just did! Here it is again:

24 X 5 = 120 then divided by 2 = 60. The "divided by 2 = 60" are the glasses.

How many times per second will the shutter glasses let the left eye see what is on the TV? Is it 60?

If the shutter glasses let the left eye see an image of what is on the TV 60 times per second, when the movie is actually 24p, isn't that similar to me watching a 2D 24p movie on a 60hz TV (except that there won't be shutter glasses blanking the picture)?

How many times per second will the shutter glasses let the left eye see what is on the TV? Is it 60?

Yes - 60 per eye. half of the 120 total.

the movie is no longer 24P. It is now 120P

Yes - 60 per eye. half of the 120 total.
Right. So the left eye sees an image on the TV 60 times per second.

The movie is 24 frames per second. How will the left eye see each frame from the 24p movie an equal length of time to avoid pull-down judder?

Right. So the left eye sees an image on the TV 60 times per second.

The movie is 24 frames per second. How will the left eye see each frame from the 24p movie an equal length of time to avoid pull-down judder?

The movie WAS 24P. Now it is 120P. A 3D display does the same thing that a 2D display does. Applies the 5 X multiplier. That avoids the need for the 3:2 pulldown.

But instead of showing the images at 120P which a 2D display does - it syncs up with the shutter glasses showing alternating frames at 60 FPS per eye.

The movie WAS 24P. Now it is 120P. A 3D display does the same thing that a 2D display does. Applies the 5 X multiplier. That avoids the need for the 3:2 pulldown.

But instead of showing the images at 120P which a 2D display does - it syncs up with the shutter glasses showing alternating frames at 60 FPS per eye.
What about this post below?
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15704792#post15704792
Judder will be reintroduced into 3D films using a 120 Hz VRR.

As I understand it - 2 streams, each 24P. Then apply 3:2 pulldown to get them to 60P.

The 240 Hz displays would not have this issue IF the streams were sent as raw 24P signals - then apply 5:5 frame multiplication to each 120 Hz stream.

What about this post below?
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15704792#post15704792

I made that post a while ago - long before the Panasonic information about them also having a 24P mode hit the internet.

No Joe - the images are coming off the BD player at 24P.The picture and link only talk about 1080i60 original from what I saw (although I could have missed it). For 24P film are you saying that the player outputs 24P total with left and right separate (12P for the left eye and 12P for the right eye), 48P total with left and right separate (24P for the left eye and 24P for the right eye), or something else? Somehow the player has to send out information for the left eye and information for the right eye. In short, what is the P rate that you are saying the player sends out for the left eye and is that information sent in a different frame than the information for the right eye?

--Darin

a.) 2 frames = 2Hz = 1 3d frame sequential frame
b.) 48 frames = 48Hz = 24 3d frame sequential frames = 24p video
c.) 120/48 = 2.5 = 3:2 pulldown

Lee Stewart,

In order to bring about some conclusion you must either agree or disagree with points a, b, an c above.
If not then list the letter you don't agree on and say why.

Joe Blogs,

when Lee Stewart gives his answer, use the method I gave Lee to argue his point.
That way everybody is on the same page and nobody gets confused. :)

I already gave my answer. here it is for the last time:

24 X 5 = 120 then divided by 2 = 60. The "divided by 2 = 60" are the glasses.

There is no 48 anything.

Joe started this whole confusion when he started on his 48 FPS nonsense.

The picture and link only talk about 1080i60 original from what I saw (although I could have missed it). For 24P film are you saying that the player outputs 24P total with left and right separate (12P for the left eye and 12P for the right eye), 48P total with left and right separate (24P for the left eye and 24P for the right eye), or something else? Somehow the player has to send out information for the left eye and information for the right eye. In short, what is the P rate that you are saying the player sends out for the left eye and is that information sent in a different frame than the information for the right eye?

--Darin

Once again - the description:

And, in fact, the technologies proposed by Panasonic for 3D imagery storage, transfer, etc, all utilize existing standard technology. Image encoding uses the two-channel encoding function implemented in Moving Picture Coding Experts Group Phase 4 Advanced Video Coding (MPEG-4 AVC) H.264. The second channel stores only the data different from channel one, holding the increase in data volume to about 1.5 times. The HDMI standard is used to transfer data from the player to the television, with left- and right-eye images alternated in single-field (single-frame) units. “All we have to do is define a flag to identify image data, equipment and other elements supporting 3D imagery. We really don’t need any other major changes,” explained Hiroshi Miyai, director, High Quality AV Development Center of Panasonic

The link with the updated info that identified that there was also going to be 24P in addition to 60i:

http://www.nabanet.com/nabaweb/documents/agms/2009/P1_PFannon.pdf

More information from Panasonic on their 3D system for BD:

http://www.panasonic.com/3D/

The link with the updated info that identified that there was also going to be 24P in addition to 60i:

http://www.nabanet.com/nabaweb/documents/agms/2009/P1_PFannon.pdfOkay, from that it looks like the player sends out 48 frames per second by sending 24P times 2 channels. If a person closes one eye how many frames will they see per second and will every frame be shown the exact same number of times? If your claim is 60 frames per second per eye and yes, then how?

We may need to break this down by codes, like L1, L2, L3, and R1, R2, R3, for each frame. How about just mapping 1/6th of a second, which at 60 frames per second for the left eye would be 10 frames at the display side, but only 4 frames in the original movie. Looks to me like the left eye might see:

L1, L1, L2, L2, L2, L3, L3, L4, L4, L4

or

L1, L1, L1, L2, L2, L3, L3, L3, L4, L4

Do you think the left eye would see something different than that for 24P original?

For the above the total output from the display might be (for 1/6th of a second):

L1, R1, L1, R1, L2, R2, L2, R2, L2, R2, L3, R3, L3, R3, L4, R4, L4, R4, L4, R4

--Darin

And to be clear, are the glasses changing at 60 times per second, or 120 times per second?

At the Panasonic demo I attended at CEDIA the guy told us that the glasses were 50Hz.

--Darin

Okay, from that it looks like the player sends out 48 frames per second by sending 24P times 2 channels. If a person closes one eye how many frames will they see per second and will every frame be shown the exact same number of times? If your claim is 60 frames per second per eye and yes, then how?

We may need to break this down by codes, like L1, L2, L3, and R1, R2, R3, for each frame. How about just mapping 1/6th of a second, which at 60 frames per second for the left eye would be 10 frames at the display side, but only 4 frames in the original movie. Looks to me like the left eye might see:

L1, L1, L2, L2, L2, L3, L3, L4, L4, L4

or

L1, L1, L1, L2, L2, L3, L3, L3, L4, L4

Do you think the left eye would see something different than that for 24P original?

For the above the total output from the display might be (for 1/6th of a second):

L1, R1, L1, R1, L2, R2, L2, R2, L2, R2, L3, R3, L3, R3, L4, R4, L4, R4, L4, R4

--Darin

That 2 channel notation is really throwing everyone off. Here it is again:

The HDMI standard is used to transfer data from the player to the television, with left- and right-eye images alternated in single-field (single-frame) units.

The frames are coming out of the player at 24 FPS. Not 24 x 2 - just 24 FPS.

Then they hit the display which multiplies them to 120 FPS, then sends them out as alternating frames at 60 FPS per eye which matches the shutter glasses.

a.) 2 frames = 2Hz = 1 3d frame sequential frame
b.) 48 frames = 48Hz = 24 3d frame sequential frames = 24p video
c.) 120/48 = 2.5 = 3:2 pulldown

Lee Stewart,

In order to bring about some conclusion you must either agree or disagree with points a, b, an c above.
If not then list the letter you don't agree on and say why.

Joe Blogs,

when Lee Stewart gives his answer, use the method I gave Lee to argue his point.
That way everybody is on the same page and nobody gets confused. :)

Look at the picture:

http://thumbnails10.imagebam.com/4893/10cf6248926471.gif (http://www.imagebam.com/image/10cf6248926471)

Source: page 5 (http://www42.tok2.com/home/ksatsch/pdf/31_AdvancedTVand3-D(DisplaySystems).pdf)

It shows the left frame, then the right frame.
It does not show 3 right frames, then three left frames.

If it shows more than 1 frame being used per side before showing the other side then Lee Steward is right, but they show a single frame being used each side in sequence.
Therefore Lee Steward is wrong and if he said a.) was wrong this was incorrect.

If you think Panasonic does not make frames like in the picture then watch the video and it will show you they do: link (http://www.panasonic.com/3D/watch-IA8St57xnx4.aspx)

And to be clear, are the glasses changing at 60 times per second, or 120 times per second?

At the Panasonic demo I attended at CEDIA the guy told us that the glasses were 50Hz.

--Darin

The glasses have to match the refresh rate of the display. the display is 120 Hz which is showing alternating images at 60 FPS per eye. The glasses are also 120 Hz - at 60 frames per eye.

50 Hz? :confused:

Look at the picture:

http://thumbnails10.imagebam.com/4893/10cf6248926471.gif (http://www.imagebam.com/image/10cf6248926471)

Source: page 5 (http://www42.tok2.com/home/ksatsch/pdf/31_AdvancedTVand3-D(DisplaySystems).pdf)

It shows the left frame, then the right frame.
It does not show 3 right frames, then three left frames.

If it shows more than 1 frame being used per side before showing the other side then Lee Steward is right, but they show a single frame being used each side in sequence.
Therefore Lee Steward is wrong and if he said a.) was wrong this was incorrect.

If you think Panasonic does not make frames like in the picture then watch the video and it will show you they do: link (http://www.panasonic.com/3D/watch-IA8St57xnx4.aspx)

It was right in the video! You saw it.

The display is holding the frames at 120 total per second. Then it actually displays them at 60 frames per second per eye for the glasses. At approx 3:01 minutes into the video.

It is getting the frames at 24 FPS then 5X to get to the 120.

There is NO 3:2 pulldown.

My reply in post #169 proves a.) is correct, therefore b.) and c.) is correct also.

Do you wish to argue this point Lee Steward?

It's Stewart.

There is no 48 FPS.

There is no 3:2 pulldown.

Hehehe . . .

Found the answer to my question that I asked 3 pages ago:

Panasonic is not planning to standardize the techniques for displaying 3D imagery. At CEATEC Japan 2008, the company exhibited a 103-inch plasma display panel (PDP) television displaying 3D pictures (see Fig). It featured dual drive integrated circuits (IC) to achieve a high 120 frames/s, and modified phosphors to shorten plasma emission rise/fall times.

I wanted to know why they were using modified phosphors . . .

"and most had long phosphor persistence which produces a lot of stereoscopic crosstalk."

:)

It was right in the video! You saw it.

The display is holding the frames at 120 total per second. Then it actually displays them at 60 frames per second per eye for the glasses. At approx 3:01 minutes into the video.

It is getting the frames at 24 FPS then 5X to get to the 120.

There is NO 3:2 pulldown.

This is frame capture from video.

http://thumbnails10.imagebam.com/4893/5b87cf48929377.gif (http://www.imagebam.com/image/5b87cf48929377)

I'm not sure how it goes without hearing your opinion.
Look at the picture and tell me what you see.

This is frame capture from video.

http://thumbnails10.imagebam.com/4893/5b87cf48929377.gif (http://www.imagebam.com/image/5b87cf48929377)

I'm not sure how it goes without hearing your opinion.
Look at the picture and tell me what you see.

Is that video showing movie frames or video frames?

Video frames are 60 per second. 60i is deinterlaced to 60P

When the BD player is outputing 24P using alternating L & R frames - then it is 12 FPS per eye. The 3DTV then does it's 5X to get them first to 60 FPS per eye - then displays them at 120 FPS alternating frames.

Is that video showing movie frames or video frames?

Video frames are 60 per second. 60i is deinterlaced to 60P

When the BD player is outputing 24P using alternating L & R frames - then it is 12 FPS per eye. The 3DTV then does it's 5X to get them first to 60 FPS per eye - then displays them at 120 FPS alternating frames.
12 FPS per eye :eek: This is shocking! The Panasonic 3D system isn't showing all 24 frames of the original 24fps movie but dropping half of them! I hope not.

12 FPS per eye :eek: This is shocking. The Panasonic 3D system isn't showing all 24 frames of the original 24fps movie but dropping half of them! I hope not.

It isn't dropping anything. It is still outputing at 24 FPS - It is running the frame rate at half speed which is really normal speed only there are alternating frames instead of consecutive frames..

The Panasonic promo video said that their 3d blu ray system was the same as the one used in theaters.
That is to say theirs is the same as Dolby Digital 3d Cinema.
And I have a pdf explaining Dolby Digital 3d Cinema: link (http://www.mediafire.com/?mzjtiyykmq4)

Read the pdf and see how they do it and it may prove Lee Stewart right or wrong. I will read it after. :)

Do you really believe the BDA is going to approve a 3D system for BD that takes a giant step backwards - using 3:2 pulldown?

You must. You are defending it with all kinds of arguments.

Is that video showing movie frames or video frames?

They say "Theater Quality" right before showing that picture you quoted.

The Panasonic promo video said that their 3d blu ray system was the same as the one used in theaters.
That is to say theirs is the same as Dolby Digital 3d Cinema.
And I have a pdf explaining Dolby Digital 3d Cinema: link (http://www.mediafire.com/?mzjtiyykmq4)

Read the pdf and see how they do it and it may prove Lee Stewart right or wrong. I will read it after. :)

HERE is the Dolby 3d system PDF:

http://www.edcf.net/edcf_docs/dolby-3d.pdf

Dolby also considered it essential that the glasses be ‘passive’, to avoid any need to recharge units or to deal with customers complaining of glasses that don’t work.


Does that look the same to you? It doesn't to me.

Do you really believe the BDA is going to approve a 3D system for BD that takes a giant step backwards - using 3:2 pulldown?

You must. You are defending it with all kinds of arguments.
I'd much rather have 3:2 pull-down judder (even though I don't want pull-down judder) than a system that was 12 FPS per eye - A system that was 12 fps per eye would most likely judder/strobe a lot more than 24 fps with pull-down judder.

Also if you had a 240hz display you wouldn't have the 3:2 pull-down judder with stereoscopic 3D content using the shutter glasses method.

And aren't there other display technologies like polarization? Doesn't a TV using that show both images at the same time or something so you wouldn't need twice the refresh rate if you had one of these TVs - or have I got that wrong?

I'd much rather have 3:2 pull-down judder than a system that was 12 FPS per eye.

It is not 12 FPS per eye - it is 60 frames per eye.

Also if you had a 240hz display you wouldn't have the 3:2 pull-down judder with stereoscopic 3D content using the shutter glasses method.

Each CEM is free to do whatever they want as far as the display - as long as it accepts the 3D BD standard data stream.

And aren't there other display technologies like polarization? Doesn't a TV using that show both images at the same time or something so you wouldn't need twice the refresh rate if you had one of these TVs - or have I got that wrong?

There are many different kinds of 3D formats. We are talking about the 3D standard for BD which will be alternating frames which means active shutter glasses. It's what IMAX 3D used to use.

It is not 12 FPS per eye - it is 60 frames per eye.

I too think the Panasonic 3D system can't be 12fps per eye, I'm sure they would have told us if it was. But your previous post seemed to be saying it was:

When the BD player is outputing 24P using alternating L & R frames - then it is 12 FPS per eye

I too think the Panasonic 3D system can't be 12fps per eye, I'm sure they would have told us if it was. But your previous post seemed to be saying it was:

What are the frame rate outputs for 1080, for a normal 2D BD player? Are they 24P and 60i?

What are the frame rates for 1080, for a normal 2D BD player? Are they 24P and 60i?
They are 24p, 50i and 60i where I come from. By that I mean the players can decode 24p, 50i and 60i 1920x1080 content. The player might output a signal at 1080p24, 1080p50 or 1080p60 (or interlaced if you set it to).

Remember that the difference between the L & R images is a slight offset which produces the 3D effect when used with shutter glasses. It's still 24P. It's not like filming at native 12P.

Remember that the difference between the L & R images is a slight offset which produces the 3D effect when used with shutter glasses. It's still 24P. It's not like filming at native 12P.
No I'm sure it won't be 12P. Even with the stereoscopic 3D it would look really bad and worse than 3:2 pull-down judder on 24p converted to 60p. It would probably make everything look like low frame rate stop motion animation.

I too think the Panasonic 3D system can't be 12fps per eye, I'm sure they would have told us if it was. But your previous post seemed to be saying it was:

It is 24 FPS using the alternative frame method to produce 3D.

Joe:

You mentioned the polarizing method of 3D. JVC just released their commerical 3D LCD as a consumer 3D LCD (no difference other than who will sell it) and it uses the polarizing 3D method.

Here is their announcement along with the different 3D formats that work with polarized glasses - which are different than the Panasonic one:

http://www.jvc.nl/article.php?id=100214

Thanks Lee.

Thanks Lee.

:)

And as you can see - Panasonic is serious about their 3D system:

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/04/20/panasonic-3d-cinema-concept-camera-looks-like-wall-e-binoculars/

Disney promotes 3D at consumer show

PHYSICAL: Studio showed A Christmas Carol on Blu-ray with Panasonic components

By Susanne Ault -- Video Business, 9/14/2009
SEPT. 14 | PHYSICAL: Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment anticipates releasing its first theatrical-styled 3D Blu-ray Disc releases as early as fourth quarter 2010.

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6696770.html

I too think the Panasonic 3D system can't be 12fps per eye, I'm sure they would have told us if it was. But your previous post seemed to be saying it was:The output from the decoder is two streams, each 108024p, 720p60, or 1080i30. In simplest mode of operation, after merging subtitiles, etc., they get frame packed and sent to the display.

Don't take some presentations too seriously, they are designed to educate consumers, not convey implementation details. And nobody is saying that Panasonic scheme was adopted exactly as proposed.

Lee, the Panasonic 3D method for Blu-ray transfers 2 channels of video (http://www.nabanet.com/nabaweb/documents/agms/2009/P1_PFannon.pdf). 120 Hz is just what the Panasonic display shows and the movie frame rate would be 48 fps for both eyes or 24 fps per eye. To convert 48 fps to 120 Hz (per eye it would be 24 fps to 60 Hz) it has to use either 3-2 frame repetition or motion interpolation. From what I have read (http://www.edcf.net/edcf_docs/real-d.pdf) 3D DLP RealD theaters have a refresh rate of 144 Hz so that each frame for each eye can be shown 3 times. I understand why Panasonic hasn't advertised this issue and their advertising material (seen in this article (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/HONSHI/20081030/160508/) and this article (http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2009/01/ces-2009-panasonic-103-inch-full-hd-3d.html)) only mentions that the display can show 60 fps per eye. That has led to a lot of confusion since people confuse the issues of the 3D method used on Blu-ray with how the 3D video is displayed.

The output from the decoder is two streams, each 108024p, 720p60, or 1080i30. In simplest mode of operation, after merging subtitiles, etc., they get frame packed and sent to the display.

Don't take some presentations too seriously, they are designed to educate consumers, not convey implementation details. And nobody is saying that Panasonic scheme was adopted exactly as proposed.

But aren't the streams combined then sent over HDMI as a single stream?

But aren't the streams combined then sent over HDMI as a single stream?Yes. The HDTV then unpacks it and processes it according to whatever it is designed to do with it.

Here's what goes on inside the player:

The output from the decoder is two streams (L and R), each 1080p24, 720p60, or 1080i30.

Each stream then has subtitles, etc. merged into it.

The player asks the HDTV what 3D input formats it supports and their preferred order. If no response, the default mode selected by user is used.

The two streams are processed and packed according to the desired 3D output format and sent to the HDTV.

Here's what goes on inside the player:

The output from the decoder is two streams (L and R), each 1080p24, 720p60, or 1080i30.

Each stream then has subtitles, etc. merged into it.

The player asks the HDTV what 3D input formats it supports and their preferred order. If no response, the default mode selected by user is used.

The two streams are processed and packed according to the desired 3D output format and sent to the HDTV.

LOL!

You read minds too Keith?

I was going to ask you to explain your previous post a little more in depth.

It is not 12 FPS per eye - it is 60 frames per eye.By that logic film in the theater is 48 or 72 frames per second (depending on whether they are using a double or triple shutter). We of course need to define whether we are talking about original (unique) frames or just the same frame being shown multiple times.

Back to the 24P and 120Hz thing, I don't think your position about 24x5=120 and then 120/2 being 60 really covers it and so I would like to see more detail about what each eye sees from your position that there is no 3:2 pulldown kind of effect. With a 24p 3D film, how many unique frames do think the left eye will see per second and how many times will it see each of those frames?

As an example, in digital cinema running 24p film at 144Hz for 3D, the left eye will see 24 unique frames per second and will see each of those unique frames 3 times. At least from the way it looks to me for how the math works out.

--Darin

By that logic film in the theater is 48 or 72 frames per second (depending on whether they are using a double or triple shutter). We of course need to define whether we are talking about original (unique) frames or just the same frame being shown multiple times.

Back to the 24P and 120Hz thing, I don't think your position about 24x5=120 and then 120/2 being 60 really covers it and so I would like to see more detail about what each eye sees from your position that there is no 3:2 pulldown kind of effect. With a 24p 3D film, how many unique frames do think the left eye will see per second and how many times will it see each of those frames?

As an example, in digital cinema running 24p film at 144Hz for 3D, the left eye will see 24 unique frames per second and will see each of those unique frames 3 times. At least from the way it looks to me for how the math works out.

--Darin

Panasonic has said that a 3D encode will result in approx. 50% more data than a 2D encode. It only stores the data that is different in the 2nd channel from the 1st channel. So there has to be same frame repetition.

Panasonic has said that a 3D encode will result in approx. 50% more data than a 2D encode. It only stores the data that is different in the 2nd channel from the 1st channel. So there has to be same frame repetition.That doesn't relate to my question.

How many different frames will the left eye see per second and how many times will it see it for film with this 3D system? And same for the right eye if you want, but it will be the same answer.

This goes back to your:
I just did! Here it is again:

24 X 5 = 120 then divided by 2 = 60. The "divided by 2 = 60" are the glasses.

These are NOT like 2D HDTVs (120 hz). They will have special circuitry in them.

No - it is 1/60th of a second. You are confusing the data stream - which is now 120 and not 24.which really doesn't address the question. If you think there is no pull-down issue like 3:2 then please tell us what the sequence is as you see it or how many times each original frame will be shown. If each original frame that includes both the left and right eyes is shown 5 times then there is no way to split that between the left and right eyes without showing different frames different numbers of times between eyes or compared to other frames (like showing one frame 3 times and a different frame 2 times).

--Darin

By that logic film in the theater is 48 or 72 frames per second (depending on whether they are using a double or triple shutter). We of course need to define whether we are talking about original (unique) frames or just the same frame being shown multiple times.

Back to the 24P and 120Hz thing, I don't think your position about 24x5=120 and then 120/2 being 60 really covers it and so I would like to see more detail about what each eye sees from your position that there is no 3:2 pulldown kind of effect. With a 24p 3D film, how many unique frames do think the left eye will see per second and how many times will it see each of those frames?

As an example, in digital cinema running 24p film at 144Hz for 3D, the left eye will see 24 unique frames per second and will see each of those unique frames 3 times. At least from the way it looks to me for how the math works out.

--Darin

The studios could make this a lot easier on everyone if they started shooting at 30fps... :D Or we skip 120Hz displays and jump straight to true 240Hz displays.

That doesn't relate to my question.

How many different frames will the left eye see per second and how many times will it see it for film with this 3D system? And same for the right eye if you want, but it will be the same answer.

This goes back to your:
which really doesn't address the question. If you think there is no pull-down issue like 3:2 then please tell us what the sequence is as you see it or how many times each original frame will be shown. If each original frame that includes both the left and right eyes is shown 5 times then there is no way to split that between the left and right eyes without showing different frames different numbers of times between eyes or compared to other frames (like showing one frame 3 times and a different frame 2 times).

--Darin

LRLRLRLRLRLRLRLRLRLRLRLR = 1 second.

That would be the progression of the frames leaving the BDF player through the HDMI cable.

Then the display applies the 5X multiplier.

LRLRLRLRLRLRLRLRLRLRLRLR = 1 second.

That would be the progression of the frames leaving the BDF player through the HDMI cable.

Then the display applies the 5X multiplier.
That's still only 12 FPS per eye. Everybody else has been saying that it won't be like that Lee. The left eye will see all 24 of it's intended frames per second, the right eye will see all 24 of it's intended frames per second.

TV's only capable of outputting at 120hz (120 images per second) will mean there is 3:2 pull-down judder when watching 24p stereoscopic TV using this method (where the left, then the right eye views need to be shown seperately). 240hz TV won't have this pull-down judder on 24p stereoscopic content.

That's still only 12 FPS per eye. Everybody else has been saying that it won't be like that Lee. The left eye will see all 24 of it's intended frames per second, the right eye will see all 24 of it's intended frames per second.

TV's only capable of outputting at 120hz (120 images per second) will mean there is 3:2 pull-down judder when watching 24p stereoscopic TV using this method (where the left, then the right eye views need to be shown seperately). 240hz TV won't have this pull-down judder on 24p stereoscopic content.

Guess we will just have to wait for additional information about the Panasonic 3D system and how it works.

I just can't believe that after inventing display tech that finally gets rid of frame judder - they are going to reintroduce it into 3D movies where IMO, the judder will be more noticeable than on a 2D display.

TV's only capable of outputting at 120hz (120 images per second) will mean there is 3:2 pull-down judder when watching 24p stereoscopic TV using this method (where the left, then the right eye views need to be shown seperately). 240hz TV won't have this pull-down judder on 24p stereoscopic content.And neither would TVs that could do 96Hz if the glasses could be set to sync with those. In other words, if the glasses supported it the TVs would just need to support 96Hz for 24p input and 120Hz for 60p input. I'm not sure how 48Hz for each eye would look, but theaters with doubling shutters for film basically have that now for both eyes.

--Darin

So with Sony announcing that its 3D technology will also use shutter glasses is there any doubt to which technology the BDA will adopt?

Lee, the Panasonic 3D method for Blu-ray transfers 2 channels of video (http://www.nabanet.com/nabaweb/documents/agms/2009/P1_PFannon.pdf). 120 Hz is just what the Panasonic display shows and the movie frame rate would be 48 fps for both eyes or 24 fps per eye. To convert 48 fps to 120 Hz (per eye it would be 24 fps to 60 Hz) it has to use either 3-2 frame repetition or motion interpolation. From what I have read (http://www.edcf.net/edcf_docs/real-d.pdf) 3D DLP RealD theaters have a refresh rate of 144 Hz so that each frame for each eye can be shown 3 times. I understand why Panasonic hasn't advertised this issue and their advertising material (seen in this article (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/HONSHI/20081030/160508/) and this article (http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2009/01/ces-2009-panasonic-103-inch-full-hd-3d.html)) only mentions that the display can show 60 fps per eye. That has led to a lot of confusion since people confuse the issues of the 3D method used on Blu-ray with how the 3D video is displayed.

I was puzzling about this issue in the "Official 3D Thread" and I think that (pace Lee Stewart) it's clear enough that > 120Hz display refresh is required to obviate the need for pulldown. We will therefore see telecine stutter on the upcoming Panasonic 3D plasmas, an unfortunate step backwards given that this year they finally implemented 2D 24p playback correctly with their 96Hz mode.

We will need a new batch of displays with very high refresh rates to show 24fps 3D without pulldown.

So 144Hz is used in commercial theatres? (Those are big 3-chip DLP projectors?)

Darin:

An explaination for the Panasonic rep telling you the 103" PDP was running at 50i - page 16:

ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/Drivers/PBTS/brochures/B_TH-103PF10UK.pdf

I just can't believe that after inventing display tech that finally gets rid of frame judder - they are going to reintroduce it into 3D movies where IMO, the judder will be more noticeable than on a 2D display.What's display technology got to with the BDA? It's not their fault if you don't have a 240Hz 3D HDTV and want the best 3D experience...

What's display technology got to with the BDA? It's not their fault if you don't have a 240Hz 3D HDTV and want the best 3D experience...I agree. Given that though, will the BDA be defining things like what frequencies the glasses will support so that we can avoid pulldown issues, or will that be outside the realm of what the BDA defines?

I don't know too much about current glasses technology for this, but wonder if glasses that support 240Hz will be pretty easy to develop or something difficult (and something we might have to wait on).

--Darin

So 144Hz is used in commercial theatres? (Those are big 3-chip DLP projectors?)Yes, from what I have read the 3D DLP projectors used at movie theaters operate at 144 Hz and here is an article (http://www.digitalversus.com/article-766.html#) that explains a bit about that.

•How to calculate HDMI Bandwidth

HSYNC: 1920+280 (horizontal blanking pixel No.)
VSYNC: 1200+50 (vertical blanking line No.)
total pixel per frame = 2200x1250 = 2.75 Mpx/frame
Bit rate = 2.75 Mpx/frame x 24 (= 3x8) bit/px x 60 frame/s = 3.96 Gbit/s
TMDS: 8 bit -> 10 bit
TMDS bit rate = 3.96 Gbit/s x 10/8 = 4.95 Gbit/s

•HDMI Maximum TMDS bandwidth (Gbit/s) 10.2

•3D Over HDMI
The 1.4 version of the specification will define common 3D formats and resolutions for HDMI-enabled devices. The specification will standardize the input/output portion of the home 3D system and will specify up to dual-stream 1080p resolution.

•Maximum refresh rate of hdmi 1.4 = 340Hz
340/2=170= fastest possible speed either the left frame or right frame of 3d blu ray video may go is 170Hz.

•DLP technology can project 3-D images with a single projector by presenting the stereoscopic left/right image pairs sequentially.
This means that a left image is presented, and then a right image is presented, and never will both a left and a right image appear on the screen at the same time.
However, presenting left/right images to the audience at a 48 fps rate is less than ideal as the sequential nature of the images are perceivable and distracting.

To overcome this, sequential projection requires that the stereoscopic pair of images are "flashed" on screen.
This involves, within the time frame of 1/24th of second, the repetition of a left/right sequence three times before presenting the next left/right sequence.
This process is called "triple flash."

With triple flash, the rate in which images are presented to the audience is a speedy 3 x 48 fps, or 144 fps.
The triple flash rate is a property of the projector, and is the flash rate employed with all add-on technologies for presenting 3-D images in the theatre.

link (http://mkpe.com/publications/d-cinema/misc/choice_in_3-D.php)

•"Replicating the projection method used in 3d digital theaters".
Spoken at 2:11 to 2:15 in the video from Panasonic.
Meaning 144Hz will be used somehow.

http://www.panasonic.com/3D/

link to quote source (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17188891#post17188891)

So this shows that the Panasonic method is a "replica" of the one used in digital theaters, meaning 48x3=144Hz refresh rate.

The bandwidth of the Blu Ray video is it can be shown twice, not three times.
For the bandwidth needed to replicate the 3d digital theater the tmds would need to be bigger than 10.2, it would need to be 4.95 Gbit/s x3 at least, but it's not.

Meaning if Panasonic replicated the method used in theaters they have to replicate the frame two time only, not three like as done in the digital theater.

"This involves, within the time frame of 1/24th of second, the repetition of a left/right sequence two times before presenting the next left/right sequence.
This process is called "dual flash."" (I edited the quote so it now makes sense.)

link to quote source (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17188891#post17188891)

So this shows that the Panasonic method is a "replica" of the one used in digital theaters, meaning 48x3=144Hz refresh rate.

The bandwidth of the Blu Ray video is it can be shown twice, not three times.
For the bandwidth needed to replicate the 3d digital theater the tmds would need to be bigger than 10.2, it would need to be 4.95 Gbit/s x3 at least, but it's not.

Meaning if Panasonic replicated the method used in theaters they have to replicate the frame two time only, not three like as done in the digital theater.

"This involves, within the time frame of 1/24th of second, the repetition of a left/right sequence two times before presenting the next left/right sequence.
This process is called "dual flash."" (I edited the quote so it now makes sense.)

Why would the BD player have to do the triple-flash? Couldn't the display do it, hence saving bandwidth? Put the display in "3D mode", and it knows to triple-flash the incoming signal. Like today's 120Hz displays, they don't actually accept a 120Hz signal, it's a 24p signal, and the display does x5 multiple (or 2:3 *2).

Why would the BD player have to do the triple-flash? Couldn't the display do it, hence saving bandwidth? Put the display in "3D mode", and it knows to triple-flash the incoming signal. Like today's 120Hz displays, they don't actually accept a 120Hz signal, it's a 24p signal, and the display does x5 multiple (or 2:3 *2).

A few lines from the bottom of the inset quote it specifically says:

"The triple flash rate is a property of the projector, and is the flash rate employed with all add-on technologies for presenting 3-D images in the theatre."

It doesn't come from the BD player, or the hard drive in the commercial theatre.

144 Hz is the refresh rate of 3D Digital Cinema but it won't be used for consumer FPD displays IMO. Too specialized.

It won't be useful for anything but 3D and most of the time, the display will be used for 2D viewing. So it has to be 120, 240 etc.

Given that though, will the BDA be defining things like what frequencies the glasses will support so that we can avoid pulldown issues, or will that be outside the realm of what the BDA defines?Outside the realm of the BDA. They are only defining how to store the 3D content on the disc, how to decode it, and mandatory 3D output HDMI formats.

144 Hz is the refresh rate of 3D Digital Cinema but it won't be used for consumer FPD displays IMO. Too specialized.

It won't be useful for anything but 3D and most of the time, the display will be used for 2D viewing. So it has to be 120, 240 etc.

I agree with ya, I see them going 240Hz, it's basically the Holy Grail.

Why would the BD player have to do the triple-flash? Couldn't the display do it, hence saving bandwidth? Put the display in "3D mode", and it knows to triple-flash the incoming signal. Like today's 120Hz displays, they don't actually accept a 120Hz signal, it's a 24p signal, and the display does x5 multiple (or 2:3 *2).

A few lines from the bottom of the inset quote it specifically says:

"The triple flash rate is a property of the projector, and is the flash rate employed with all add-on technologies for presenting 3-D images in the theatre."

It doesn't come from the BD player, or the hard drive in the commercial theatre.

144 Hz is the refresh rate of 3D Digital Cinema but it won't be used for consumer FPD displays IMO. Too specialized.

It won't be useful for anything but 3D and most of the time, the display will be used for 2D viewing. So it has to be 120, 240 etc.

Section A

60hz hold time is 16.67ms
120hz hold time is 16.67/2 = 8.335ms
240hz hold time is 16.67/4 = 4.1675ms
480hz hold time is 16.67/8 = 2.08375ms
960hz hold time is 16.67/16 = 1.041875ms

_____________________________________________________

Section B

a.) 48 frames and 10:10 pulldown = 480 frames = 480Hz monitor refresh rate
b.) 96 frames and 10:10 pulldown = 960 frames = 960Hz monitor refresh rate
_____________________________________________________

Section C

"3D system of time-sequential system requires for fast response
of LC because the frame frequency is twice as high as that of 2D
system. For example, the frame rate is 120Hz so the period of
one frame is only 8.33ms. The response time of LC should be
much shorter than 8.33ms. The slower response of LC shall
cause the 3D crosstalk and the loss of luminance."

"The OCB mode is well-known for its fast response. We have
newly developed LC material to improve the response time of
OCB (Fig.3), τr+τd=3ms. The rise time from all gray level to
black is very fast, < 0.26ms (Fig.4). This means display image
can be resetted immediately and it make no influence to next
image. In this case very small 3D crosstalk is achieved. The fast
decay time from black to any gray level means high luminance of
3D display because of the high effective aperture in time range of
LC response. We can get high luminance 3D display using
OCB.
In case of other LC mode, large 3D-crosstalk will appear
because the response time to the black is not so fast. Also, the
brightness is very low because the time to the white is not fast.
The demand for 3D active shutter glasses is the same as that for
the LCD panel, that is, fast response of LC. The slow LC response
shall cause the 3D-crosstalk and shortage of luminance. So we
also applied OCB to active-shutter glasses."

http://www42.tok2.com/home/ksatsch/pdf/31_AdvancedTVand3-D(DisplaySystems).pdf
_____________________________________________________

Section D

DLP technology can project 3-D images with a single projector by presenting the stereoscopic left/right image pairs sequentially.
This means that a left image is presented, and then a right image is presented, and never will both a left and a right image appear on the screen at the same time.
However, presenting left/right images to the audience at a 48 fps rate is less than ideal as the sequential nature of the images are perceivable and distracting.

To overcome this, sequential projection requires that the stereoscopic pair of images are "flashed" on screen.
This involves, within the time frame of 1/24th of second, the repetition of a left/right sequence three times before presenting the next left/right sequence.
This process is called "triple flash."

With triple flash, the rate in which images are presented to the audience is a speedy 3 x 48 fps, or 144 fps.
The triple flash rate is a property of the projector, and is the flash rate employed with all add-on technologies for presenting 3-D images in the theatre.

http://mkpe.com/publications/d-cinema/misc/choice_in_3-D.php
_____________________________________________________

Section E

•How to calculate HDMI Bandwidth

HSYNC: 1920+280 (horizontal blanking pixel No.)
VSYNC: 1200+50 (vertical blanking line No.)
total pixel per frame = 2200x1250 = 2.75 Mpx/frame
Bit rate = 2.75 Mpx/frame x 24 (= 3x8) bit/px x 60 frame/s = 3.96 Gbit/s
TMDS: 8 bit -> 10 bit
TMDS bit rate = 3.96 Gbit/s x 10/8 = 4.95 Gbit/s

•HDMI Maximum TMDS bandwidth (Gbit/s) 10.2

•3D Over HDMI
The 1.4 version of the specification will define common 3D formats and resolutions for HDMI-enabled devices. The specification will standardize the input/output portion of the home 3D system and will specify up to dual-stream 1080p resolution.

•Maximum refresh rate of hdmi 1.4 = 340Hz

_____________________________________________________

Section F

For NTSC the monitor must have pulldown for cable tv as well as 3D Blu Ray.
And since 3D Blu Ray works with 3:3 Pulldown for a sum of 144Hz in the theaters,
the pulldown must be adjusted so the cable tv also has no judder.
Meaning the pulldown on 3D Blu Ray's 48 fps must be 10:10 for the ntsc region: 480Hz lcd monitor refresh rate.

You would divide that refresh rate by two when you deliver the picture to the shutter glasses.
So the effective refresh rate for 10:10 pulldown as shown above is 240Hz each eye when using shutter glasses.
240Hz has a hold time of 4.1675ms, and section C shows that is about right so the effect of "crosstalk" is minimized.

When you factor is the Blu Ray outputting 96fps to the monitor then you would need to make the pulldown different s there is no judder in the 3D Blu Ray movie or the cable tv.
But then the hdmi must have a TMDS allowing 4.95 Gbit/s X 4.
So making the shutter glasses compliant isn't nessessary for 48p video since the hdmi cable doesn't support 4.95 Gbit/s X 4 TMDS nessessary for 48p Blu Ray 3D source video.

Outside the realm of the BDA. They are only defining how to store the 3D content on the disc, how to decode it, and mandatory 3D output HDMI formats.
Will the BDA allow content producers to produce non-3D (ie. 2D) content using the Blu-ray 3D profile/upgrade? eg. to encode 1080p48 (or 50/60 if possible?) 2D which should still be compatible with current players, since they could read stream 1 and produce a 1080p24 (or 50i/60i?) version? And if so, do you think content producers would do it?

Will the BDA allow content producers to produce non-3D (ie. 2D) content using the Blu-ray 3D profile/upgrade? eg. to encode 1080p48 (or 50/60 if possible?) 2D which should still be compatible with current players, since they could read stream 1 and produce a 1080p24 (or 50i/60i?) version? And if so, do you think content producers would do it?

The bandwidth of the HDMI 1.4 TMDS is it can show 48P Blu Ray.
The TV can use this 48P signal from the Blu Ray player and 10:10 pulldown it to increase the framerate in the current fashion used with 24P video.

The 3d Effect would be tremdous and this would let hdmi 1.5 be implemented.

If they did this they could shoot the film in 3d 48p and only sell the 2d 48p.
Then when the 3d tv's go on sale with the nessessary hdmi tmds bandwidth needed for 48p 3d blu ray re-release the 48p blu ray videos in 3d and everybody is amazed and there is many videos to pitch to the public.

We had to suffer through 20 years of audio downgrade when we went from laserdiscs to DVDs, courtesy of Dolby Labs. Now they are again proposing a compromised system, this time for 3D. I hope we don't get stuck with them again.

We had to suffer through 20 years of audio downgrade when we went from laserdiscs to DVDs, courtesy of Dolby Labs. Now they are again proposing a compromised system, this time for 3D. I hope we don't get stuck with them again.


Are you reffering to Panasonic? What 3D standard do you think is the best for Blu-ray Beta tester? What 3D standard do you think is the best for broadcasting?

3Dkid

* A personnal opinion is that Panasonic standard is making things too complicated for not a lot of xtra image quality. I would go for a standard that can be universal (Sensio or Dolby), backward compatible with the entire infrastructure (i.e. BD, DVD, cable, HDMI, internet, sat.,,,) (if dealt to with additional 2DBD disc like they plan and adapted set-top box, Sensio and Dolby are compatible), easy to implement\versatile (not Panasonic standard) and 3DHD with high definition quality image (Sensio would have an edge over Dolby on this criteria). The standard should be universal and easy to implement (only Dolby and Sensio qualify for that) so we can get product on market quickly without confusing people.

Are you reffering to Panasonic? What 3D standard do you think is the best for Blu-ray Beta tester? What 3D standard do you think is the best for broadcasting?


Anyone but Dolby. IMO they have never been a company that focuses on quality.

Are you reffering to Panasonic? What 3D standard do you think is the best for Blu-ray Beta tester? What 3D standard do you think is the best for broadcasting?Content is routinely optimized for each type of distribution model anyway. And all 3D solutions are complex to implement. The requirements for each type of 3D distribution type are different.

For BD, high priority requirements are (1) cinema quality, (2) plays on existing players with no loss of video quality or features, (3) fits into existing BD workflow, (4) easily extendible for future features, and (5) not dependent on proprietary technology it at all possible.

For others, not increasing bandwidth is of highest priority.

Anyone but Dolby. IMO they have never been a company that focuses on quality.

I disagree, there is nothing wrong with Dolby TrueHD. If you want to think we suffered in audio quality going from Laserdisc to DVD that's fine, but it wasn't for 20 years, only 10.

Content is routinely optimized for each type of distribution model anyway. And all 3D solutions are complex to implement. The requirements for each type of 3D distribution type are different.

For BD, high priority requirements are (1) cinema quality, (2) plays on existing players with no loss of video quality or features, (3) fits into existing BD workflow, (4) easily extendible for future features, and (5) not dependent on proprietary technology it at all possible.

For others, not increasing bandwidth is of highest priority.


Dolby3D qualifies for: 2, 3, 4
Sensio3D qualifies for: 1,2,3,4
Panasonic3D qualifies for: 1, 4,5

(The other players fail 1 as far as I am concerned so I exclude them)

For other organizations where bandwith is the highest priority (broadcasters), Sensio is the only possible solution because of their proprietary patent that makes them the only 3DHD compression technology on the market. Am I correct on that one?

Also, BD is already proprietary and licensing of BD trademark is already required. Is the addition of a 3D license such a big deal in that context?

The ideal solution does not exist at this time so it will be a matter of making a compromise. Which one will they make is the question. The other question is: can we end up with a BD 3D standard, a videogame 3D standard and a broadcast 3D standard?

3Dkid

Dolby3D qualifies for: 2, 3, 4
Sensio3D qualifies for: 1,2,3,4
Panasonic3D qualifies for: 1, 4,5

Why did you exclude Panasonic from #'s 2 and 3? They definitely apply.

(The other players fail 1 as far as I am concerned so I exclude them)

For other organizations where bandwith is the highest priority (broadcasters), Sensio is the only possible solution because of their proprietary patent that makes them the only 3DHD compression technology on the market. Am I correct on that one?

Also, BD is already proprietary and licensing of BD trademark is already required. Is the addition of a 3D license such a big deal in that context?

The ideal solution does not exist at this time so it will be a matter of making a compromise. Which one will they make is the question. The other question is: can we end up with a BD 3D standard, a videogame 3D standard and a broadcast 3D standard?

3Dkid

BOLD = Sure. Though Sony may use the BD standard for PS3 3D games because they are on BD discs. Excellent chance Sensio will be picked for the 3D broadcast Standard.

[QUOTE=Lee Stewart;17196720]Why did you exclude Panasonic from #'s 2 and 3? They definitely apply.



Because with Panasonic you have to change BD to view your 3D movie. With Sensio you don't. The Panasonic standard (ie a 3D encrypted disc with the Panasonic std) could not produce a 3D effect on a 3D enabled TV using existing BD players. For that reason it fails number 2.

With Dolby and Sensio consumers can use the BD that they already have. The decoder would be in the TV (That said, they will probably put a decoder in the BD as well in case a customer only has an existing 3D ready TV)

As for number 3 I am not sure what Keith meant but I assume it kind of the same than his second point.

3Dkid

If you want to think we suffered in audio quality going from Laserdisc to DVD that's fine, but it wasn't for 20 years, only 10.

You're correct. For 10 years we got stuck with inferior audio quality because of Dolby. It took them till about 2007 to give us their version of lossless audio (TrueHD), which we had 20 years ago on laserdiscs. To this date, even on Blu-Rays we are sometimes stuck with 640K Dolby Digital (I saw this in Best Buy Canada yesterday with Equilibrium, one of my favorite movies).

I loathe the day that Dolby ever got involved with audio for DVDs.

No more compromised standards. For 3D, do it properly this time, and that means not considering anything that cannot give us full HD.

You're correct. For 10 years we got stuck with inferior audio quality because of Dolby. It took them till about 2007 to give us their version of lossless audio (TrueHD), which we had 20 years ago on laserdiscs.


I didnt know that laserdisc could do lossless 5.1?

But there is still no test that show us that people actually hear the difference between lossy and lossless. Sure it looks fine on paper, but every time there is a blindtesting on this matter, people cant really hear the difference.

I didnt know that laserdisc could do lossless 5.1?

But there is still no test that show us that people actually hear the difference between lossy and lossless. Sure it looks fine on paper, but every time there is a blindtesting on this matter, people cant really hear the difference.

I can clearly hear the drop in DVD audio quality as compared to laserdiscs, and not just from memory - I still have my laserdiscs player. When I got my first DVD player, I thought there was something wrong with it because the audio sounded so thin.

I don't understand 3D technology, so I didn't vote in this poll. My only comment is we should select the standard that is least compromised from a PQ perspective.

I can clearly hear the drop in DVD audio quality as compared to laserdiscs, and not just from memoryFor the real truth on this matter one would have to have been involved in the mastering process. I do know there are quite a few older titles with Dolby Stereo (LtRt) audio that gets “Remastered” for DVD (and Blu-ray) disc release. Many believe that audio that was mixed for theater presentation is not suitable for home theater use. For older titles on BD I wish they would include the original mix of the LtRt. I too find that I preferred the sound tracks on some LaserDisc.

I have no problem with Dolby Digital and can tell you from listening test that it is difficult to tell the difference between original and the DD at 448 Kbps. At 640 Kbps it is very, very difficult to tell the difference. A professional Dolby Digital encoder and decoder was used for testing and a DAW was used as the source. A DAW is needed because there is a significant delay through the DD process. And yes, I do own stock in Dolby labs and I also like DTS.

At any rate we are hijacking the 3-D thread.

Because with Panasonic you have to change BD to view your 3D movie. With Sensio you don't.The Panasonic standard (ie a 3D encrypted disc with the Panasonic std) could not produce a 3D effect on a 3D enabled TV using existing BD players. For that reason it fails number 2.Since any other 3D solution would have to be heavily modified to be useful for BD, that statement holds true for them also. As I said many times, there is more to 3D than just the video. #2 meant that a 3D movie can be played in existing 2D players without loss of 2D quality. Goal is not to sell two versions (2D and 3D) of the same movie.

As for number 3 I am not sure what Keith meant but I assume it kind of the same than his second point.No, you need to be able to add new features in the future without breaking stuff. Markets and consumer desires don't sit still...

I know that in the least we will need a 3D ready HDTV, but what qualifies a set as 3D ready? Can a set like Panasonic's new 65V10 plasma be used for 3D? Or is it up to what the finalized standards are?

Since any other 3D solution would have to be heavily modified to be useful for BD, that statement holds true for them also. As I said many times, there is more to 3D than just the video. #2 meant that a 3D movie can be played in existing 2D players without loss of 2D quality. Goal is not to sell two versions (2D and 3D) of the same movie.

No, you need to be able to add new features in the future without breaking stuff. Markets and consumer desires don't sit still...

Blu-ray Disc Association decided that they are proposing to the studios should provide a 2D AND a 3D version of every film so the customer has the choice. With this, the backward compatibility issues of Sensio and Dolby are solved. They went public on this last week in Berlin and Amsterdam.

Where Dolby and Sensio are ahead of Panasonic is backward compatibility of a 3D encrypted movie on their respective standard with EXISTING Blue-ray Disc players as well as all the component that we already use to watch television like a set-top box, a regular DVD etc...

To watch a Sensio3D or a Dolby3D Blu-ray disc on a 3D TV equipped with a decoder (Sensio or Dolby) all you need is a Blu-ray player (no need to change the equipment we use today) and a Sensio or Dolby equipped television. The ONLY piece of equipment that has to be updated is the television.

For that single reason, I think that the penetration of 3D in the consumer's home would be much faster with any of those 2 solution providers (Dolby or Sensio). Ultimately they would still sell regular Blu-ray disc players (for those who don't have one already, this is a lot of people) but what they really want to sell is a 3D enabled expensive TV... the volume will be much higher if the consumers don't have to upgrade their entire living room. If consumers have to upgrade all their electronic equipments (like it is the case with the Panasonic format), 3DHD will end up being a products limited to the technology savvy people instead of being a mass market products. This is to consider by this group also. Volume of high price items (tv) is the way to go...mass market.................it has to be easy.......one item to change: this is easy!

^^^^^

The Panasonic 3D for BD is not only backwards compatible for all existing BD players (because of the h.264 MVC encoding method), it allows:

1. One SKU = 2D and 3D on the same disc.

2. The consumer buys one disc and if they should choose to buy a 3DTV in the future, they don't have to rebuy the movies. All they need is a 3D BD player. So their purchases become future proof.

I know that in the least we will need a 3D ready HDTV, but what qualifies a set as 3D ready? Can a set like Panasonic's new 65V10 plasma be used for 3D? Or is it up to what the finalized standards are?

Does that TV have these specs?

Panasonic is not planning to standardize the techniques for displaying 3D imagery. At CEATEC Japan 2008, the company exhibited a 103-inch plasma display panel (PDP) television displaying 3D pictures (see Fig). It featured dual drive integrated circuits (IC) to achieve a high 120 frames/s, and modified phosphors to shorten plasma emission rise/fall times.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/HONSHI/20081030/160508/

Blu-ray Disc Association decided that they are proposing to the studios should provide a 2D AND a 3D version of every film so the customer has the choice. With this, the backward compatibility issues of Sensio and Dolby are solved. They went public on this last week in Berlin and Amsterdam.But you don't really want to use different technologies and workflows between the two versions.

Where Dolby and Sensio are ahead of Panasonic is backward compatibility of a 3D encrypted movie on their respective standard with EXISTING Blue-ray Disc players as well as all the component that we already use to watch television like a set-top box, a regular DVD etc... To properly do subtitles and menus to truly satisfy the studios requires two sets of subtitle and graphics decoders (one for each eye) and the ability to adjust depth and horizontal position of each. Current standalone players can't do that. Plus the whole world is moving to using the H.264 SVC and MVC extensions, so where possible, it's would seem better to ride that wave and have readily available tools.

^^^^^

The Panasonic 3D for BD is not only backwards compatible for all existing BD players (because of the h.264 MVC encoding method), it allows:

1. One SKU = 2D and 3D on the same disc.

2. The consumer buys one disc and if they should choose to buy a 3DTV in the future, they don't have to rebuy the movies. All they need is a 3D BD player. So their purchases become future proof.

Back to your comment:

1. BD Association recommend that a 2D version AND a 3D version gets on the disc. No issues for Sensio and Dolby

2. With Panasonic, consumers have to change TV AND BDplayer. With the other two, only the TV has to be changed.

I am not really calling the Panasonic method backward compatible with existing BD devices.


This is a good reason why they should avoid the Panasonic standard. The other reason is that Sensio will most likely be the broadcast standard so why creating a second standard for BD? It has to be simple for customers and the image has to be high quality HD3D.

To properly do subtitles and menus to truly satisfy the studios requires two sets of subtitle and graphics decoders (one for each eye) and the ability to adjust depth and horizontal position of each.That certainly does sound like it would give a better experience.

The other reason is that Sensio will most likely be the broadcast standard....What do you think about the RealD and TDVision solutions?

What do you think about the RealD and TDVision solutions?

As far as I know RealD is in the display business and not so much in the distribution. As far as TDVision it is a 2D+Metadata format that is not compatible with the current distribution infrastructure. It requires more bandwith and all component of the distribution chain would have to be modified (same as what happens with Panasonic). This means new Blu-ray players,.... For a broadcast solution it is simply not compatible (and so Panasonic). For a BD solution, it could be explored but has the same disadvantages as Panasonic.

For both of those methods, the added complexity to make everything compatible as well as the added cost on customer would be hard to justify (especially for broadcast). Maybe in the long term when the infrastructure is ready and the 3D culture has established itself.

Keith:

I have been studing this sentence:

"Panasonic is not planning to standardize the techniques for displaying 3D imagery. At CEATEC Japan 2008, the company exhibited a 103-inch plasma display panel (PDP) television displaying 3D pictures (see Fig). It featured dual drive integrated circuits (IC) to achieve a high 120 frames/s, and modified phosphors to shorten plasma emission rise/fall times.

I understand the need for the dual drive IC to get to 120 FPS. What I could use a little (OK - a lot :D) of help with is the shorter rise/fall times - which I understand (?) is a product/measurement of the response time of the pixels. Either BTB or GTG depending on how the manufacturer makes the measurement with BTB being the hardest to accomplish.

PDPs have very fast response times - in the order of .002ms. (Do not know if this is BTB or GTG)

Does the size of a panel affect the response time of the pixels?

LCD's have a much slower response time - like 4ms. (GTG)

Is response time that much of an issue when displaying 3D versus 2D (both HD of course)?"

Interesting, in this article they tested traditional 2D Plasma displays for 3D use and it notes that 3D crosstalk was between 9.9% and 38.3% depending on the Plasma display they tested.

"Most of the plasma displays tested exhibited significant amounts of crosstalk when viewing time-sequential 3D images using LCS 3D glasses. The main reason for the excessive crosstalk is the significant amount of phosphor afterglow."

"in early January 2008, when this technical paper was being completed, that Samsung will be releasing several consumer “3D Ready” plasma displays in March 200810. The displays use LCS 3D glasses to view the time-sequential 3D image which updates at 120Hz. As yet we have not been able to test one of these new Samsung “3D Ready” plasma displays, but obviously Samsung have been able to successfully implement 120Hz synchronous operation in a plasma display, and presumably they have also been able to minimize phosphor afterglow which was identified as a problem with most of the commercial plasma displays that we tested."

link to pdf article (http://cmst.curtin.edu.au/publicat/2008-01_3d-plasma_woods_karvinen.pdf)
page 7 and 9

I was able to get Panasonic's PR department to setup a technical call about 3D and I asked about the 3:2 pull down issue, and after a day they got back to me and said that it hadn't been decided yet. So right now all they will say is that the system can do full 1080p60 per eye, but aren't ready to say how they'll present 1080p24 material.

The other interesting thing that was mentioned was that 3D 1080p60 doesn't take up twice the bits of 2D 1080p60 because the right and left images are so similar that the format compresses well.

I was able to get Panasonic's PR department to setup a technical call about 3D and I asked about the 3:2 pull down issue, and after a day they got back to me and said that it hadn't been decided yet. So right now all they will say is that the system can do full 1080p60 per eye, but aren't ready to say how they'll present 1080p24 material.

The other interesting thing that was mentioned was that 3D 1080p60 doesn't take up twice the bits of 2D 1080p60 because the right and left images are so similar that the format compresses well.
But it doesn't decode 1080p60 stereoscopic content though :(, it only outputs in it, just like current players can output 1080p60 2D but not decode it. If they're not taking about 1080p24, they're probably just talking about 1080i30.

Since they are using 120Hz plasma monitors for 24p 3D movies, they will have to be 3:2 Pulldown.Boy my head hurts after reading through this thread, but I've "drawn" my own experimental frame display diagrams and come to the same conclusion as you, 8:13. There is really no way around some kind of pulldown alteration of a 24p source being shown to two eyes when using a 120Hz TV. For each frame, one eye is going to have to get three flashes while the other gets two, or the display of the frames themselves will have to be staggered as you drew them. Either way I can't imagine it'll be very pretty.

All I know for sure right now is that before I personally take the plunge into 3D, I want to wait for a 480Hz TV, that is guaranteed to be able to accept and display 2D and 3D recorded at 48p and 60p (that's probably inevitable for the future). Of course it will also have to be able to show all combinations of 24p, 30p, 48p, 60i, and 60p in 2D and 3D with no pulldown judder. 480Hz should make that perfectly doable since it's evenly divisible by all combos.

24p 2d = 20 flashes per frame.
24p 3d = 10 flashes per eye per frame.
30p 2d = 16 flashes per frame.
30p 3d = 8 flashes per eye per frame.
48p 2d = 10 flashes per frame.
48p 3d = 5 flashes per eye per frame.
60p 2d = 8 flashes per frame.
60p 3d = 4 flashes per eye per frame.

After doing the math, I definitely argue that 480Hz is a better "grail" than 240Hz.

Ok, someone explain...

A 240hz display, using the SIDE-BY-SIDE 3D method would mean 120hz for both the left and right eye.

120hz (for both left and right) = 24p x 5.

Why is anyone thinking 3:2 pulldown is needed? It isn't needed for a true 120hz display displaying 24p 2D content. A true 120hz display can show it natively (x5). Now, a 60hz display had to perform 3:2 pulldown, we all know that.

Ok, someone explain...

A 240hz display, using the SIDE-BY-SIDE 3D method would mean 120hz for both the left and right eye.

120hz (for both left and right) = 24p x 5.

Why is anyone thinking 3:2 pulldown is needed? It isn't needed for a true 120hz display displaying 24p 2D content. A true 120hz display can show it natively (x5). Now, a 60hz display had to perform 3:2 pulldown, we all know that.
As far as I know, if you're using the shutter glasses method, you need a 240hz TV to avoid 3:2 pull-down judder with 24p stereoscopic content.

If you're using the polarized glasses & TV method you only need a 120hz TV with 24p stereoscopic content to avoid 3:2 pull-down judder, if both left & right images are shown at the same time.

As far as I know, if you're using the shutter glasses method, you need a 240hz TV to avoid 3:2 pull-down judder with 24p stereoscopic content.

If you're using the polarized glasses & TV method you only need a 120hz TV with 24p stereoscopic content to avoid 3:2 pull-down judder, if both left & right images are shown at the same time.

That's exactly how I see it. So I can't fathom why we would need 480Hz displays in order to avoid judder. With 240Hz, you don't need 3:2 pulldown.

The 3:2 pulldown I showed a few posts up is to how the panasonic plasma they have in thei tour truck has 3:2 pulldown when displaying 24p in frame sequential 3D.

Gotcha, you were just explaining the 120Hz Plasma that Panny was using. Makes sense for 120Hz.

That's exactly how I see it. So I can't fathom why we would need 480Hz displays in order to avoid judder. With 240Hz, you don't need 3:2 pulldown.
It depends whether James Cameron or other people ever make any movies in 48p stereoscopic and you're using the LCD shutter glasses method

It depends whether James Cameron or other people ever make any movies in 48p stereoscopic and you're using the LCD shutter glasses method

I don't think they're going to change everything because of one Producer/Director. Don't get me wrong, if there is no price difference between 240hz and 480hz, may as well go 480hz.

Boy my head hurts after reading through this thread, but I've "drawn" my own experimental frame display diagrams and come to the same conclusion as you, 8:13. There is really no way around some kind of pulldown alteration of a 24p source being shown to two eyes when using a 120Hz TV. For each frame, one eye is going to have to get three flashes while the other gets two, or the display of the frames themselves will have to be staggered as you drew them. Either way I can't imagine it'll be very pretty.

All I know for sure right now is that before I personally take the plunge into 3D, I want to wait for a 480Hz TV, that is guaranteed to be able to accept and display 2D and 3D recorded at 48p and 60p (that's probably inevitable for the future). Of course it will also have to be able to show all combinations of 24p, 30p, 48p, 60i, and 60p in 2D and 3D with no pulldown judder. 480Hz should make that perfectly doable since it's evenly divisible by all combos.

24p 2d = 20 flashes per frame.
24p 3d = 10 flashes per eye per frame.
30p 2d = 16 flashes per frame.
30p 3d = 8 flashes per eye per frame.
48p 2d = 10 flashes per frame.
48p 3d = 5 flashes per eye per frame.
60p 2d = 8 flashes per frame.
60p 3d = 4 flashes per eye per frame.

After doing the math, I definitely argue that 480Hz is a better "grail" than 240Hz.

I made some calculations from the 3D thread in this forum I made and here are the results below. This is without 3:2 pulldown.

Section f


24p........................ = 23.97600 FPS.. = 41.708375 Milliseconds Time between frames
NTSC's....................... 29.97......... = 33.3667 Milliseconds Time between frames
48p........................ = 47.95200 FPS.. = 20.8541875 Milliseconds Time between frames
NTSC's....................... 59.94 FPS..... = 16.68335 Milliseconds Time between frames


1000 / 23.97600 = 41.708375
1000 / 29.97 = 33.3667
1000 / 47.95200 = 20.8541875
1000 / 59.94 = 16.68335

There's 1000 milliseconds in a second.
MS / FPS = MS: 1000 ms / FPS = Time between frames

"The REAL D system uses triple flash to provide the best motion rendition possible. Use of triple flash puts the refresh rate above the normal flicker fusion threshold for humans, providing smoother motion. The triple flash approach also makes the left and right eye images to appear closer in time, giving significantly less motion induced parallax errors and therefore more comfortable motion rendition."

http://www.edcf.net/edcf_docs/real-d.pdf

Flicker fusion threshold

"If the frame rate falls below the flicker fusion threshold for the given viewing conditions, flicker will be apparent to the observer, and movements of objects on the film will appear jerky. For the purposes of presenting moving images, the human flicker fusion threshold is usually taken as 16 hertz (Hz)."
LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold)

MS / HZ = MS: 1000 / 16 = 62.5

• What does this mean?
1000ms / fps = ms > 1000ms / 16hz = 62.5ms = fps:ms faster than 62.5ms: No flicker
1000ms / fps = ms < 1000ms / 16hz = 62.5ms = fps:ms slower than 62.5ms: flicker

• In Actual practice though, for 3D, the Hz to use is the one Real D uses: "triple flash", as this is standard in digital cinema = 72Hz 2D (71.928fps) per eye.
1000ms / fps = ms > or = 1000ms / 72hz
1000ms / fps = ms > or = 1000ms / 72hz = 13.8888889ms = fps:ms faster than or equal too 13.8888889ms: if equal too it's decent quality 3D(but can be better).

On a 240Hz monitor, 60p video using 2:2 pulldown making it 120p video
1 000ms / 119.88fps = 8.34167501ms
8.34167501ms is faster than 13.8888889ms so there should be no flicker when using a 240hz monitor and 60p tv in stereoscopic 3D.

This is from post #2.

The Panasonic demo at Cedia used the Xpand glasses (http://xpand.tv/XpanD-3D-Stereoscopic-Kit-with-5/M/B001CQNP5I.htm?traffic_src=froogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_source=froogle) which can do double flash 96 and triple flash 144 for 24fps or double flash 120 for 30fps content.

For someone used to decent cinema 3-D the UP and Grand Canyon sequences definitely lacked Movie Theater presentation quality. There was an obvious cadence jitter going on that completely destroyed the 24fps originated segment of the presentation. On the other hand the Olympic skiing footage shot at 30 or 60fps was breathtaking and perfect. Perhaps the plasma was turned down a bit on brightness I doubt that it was 4.5 ansi lumens. Seating on the second row I did see some crosstalk.
The guy behind me did not let me take pictures so I sneaked these from the hip. To show viewing angle and content shown.

http://miamibadc.com/Images/CEDIA-2009-066.jpg

http://miamibadc.com/Images/CEDIA-2009-075.jpg
I asked what would be done about 24 fps content and they said that they were in committee and the Hollywood representatives were pushing for 144 hz triple flash accommodation within the format.