Directv in 3d... - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 27 Old 03-04-2010, 04:16 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
curtishd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,742
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Ok so most of use know Directv will have several 3D channels in June but what technology will they be and what HDTVs will and won't work? From what o have read the current STB will get a new firmware up date and the stb will be ready with the hdmi 1.3 spec. so will you need a 1.4 hdmi HDTV or what?
curtishd is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 27 Old 03-04-2010, 04:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
taz291819's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Huntsville, Al
Posts: 5,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
They'll be using RealD's Side-by-Side method. Other than that, everything else is just speculation.

Currently testing 3D with Sammy DLP, shutter glasses, and HTPC
taz291819 is offline  
post #3 of 27 Old 03-04-2010, 04:40 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by taz291819 View Post

They'll be using RealD's Side-by-Side method. Other than that, everything else is just speculation.

It was ESPN and Cable Labs who pushed HDMI.org to add the 720 Over/Under (AKA Top/Bottom) 3D format
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #4 of 27 Old 03-04-2010, 05:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
taz291819's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Huntsville, Al
Posts: 5,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

It was ESPN and Cable Labs who pushed HDMI.org to add the 720 Over/Under (AKA Top/Bottom) 3D format

Yeppers. That's the beauty of these different methods, they can easily be converted to other display methods. I do know for a fact that 3D content can be scaled, as I have quite a few 3D 720p samples, and they look fine scaled to 1080p. I also have samples using the interlaced method (Sensio), and those are converted and scaled fine to 1080p.

There hasn't been a method yet that Stereoscopic Player hasn't been able to convert. Nice piece of software indeed.

Currently testing 3D with Sammy DLP, shutter glasses, and HTPC
taz291819 is offline  
post #5 of 27 Old 03-05-2010, 10:23 AM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by taz291819 View Post

They'll be using RealD's Side-by-Side method. Other than that, everything else is just speculation.

DirecTV had stated during the CES, they would do 1080p24 in side-by-side for movies. The surprise was that their boxes can handle 1080p24, since all existing HD channels were 1080i60 or 720p60.

HDMI has now caved to the broadcasters and added a few frame-compatible "half"-resolution formats to the ones that have to be supported by 3D displays. For the US, these are 1080i60 side-by-side and 720p60/1080p24 top-bottom. This is in addition to the "full"-resolution 720p60/1080p24 frame-packing format, that was mandatory in HDMI 1.4 already, but those would probably not be supported by existing set top boxes with just a firmware upgrade.

Since the set-top-boxes will most likely not be able to convert from one 3D format to another, these three would be the most likely to be used by broadcasters. ESPN had always said they would do 720p60 side-by-side.

By the way, when you convert from a side-by-side format to a top-bottom format, you end up with only a quarter of the original resolution, since each of the two different formats has only half the original resolution, but reduced on opposite dimensions.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #6 of 27 Old 03-05-2010, 10:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post

DirecTV had stated during the CES, they would do 1080p24 in side-by-side for movies. The surprise was that their boxes can handle 1080p24, since all existing HD channels were 1080i60 or 720p60.

"Movies" isn't necessarily the same as "channels", since DirecTV has been able to get 2D 1080p24 VOD from their boxes for some time. Then we have to be careful about whether the 3D will be 1080p24 before or after the left and right frames have been unpacked. I'd bet on before.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #7 of 27 Old 03-05-2010, 11:42 AM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

"Movies" isn't necessarily the same as "channels", since DirecTV has been able to get 2D 1080p24 VOD from their boxes for some time. Then we have to be careful about whether the 3D will be 1080p24 before or after the left and right frames have been unpacked. I'd bet on before.

Yes, but they only specified this for movies, and did not comment on other content on different channels. For other content, that is natively 60 Hz, 1080i60 or 720p60 would have to be used.

With HDMI 1.4a, and assuming the set top box can not convert the transmitted frame format into a different 3D output format, this narrows the cable or sat transmission formats to:
- 1080p24 Top-and-Bottom (presumably for movies)
- 1080i60 Side-by-Side (presumably for TV shows)
- 720p60 Top-and-Bottom (presumably for sports)

For 3D Blu-ray players, the preferred output formats would still be:
- 1080p24 Frame Packing (movies)
- 720p60 Frame Packing (other content)
Because these are the only ones that allow for full resolution per eye.

For a set-top-box, the conversion to Frame Packing would be possible, but not useful, since the content is already delivered with half the nominal resolution per eye.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #8 of 27 Old 03-09-2010, 06:47 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
curtishd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,742
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
According to hdbeat.com CBS will be offers the NCAA mens basketball Finsl Four in 3D at theaters and even just maybe via cable or satellite.
curtishd is offline  
post #9 of 27 Old 03-10-2010, 09:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
taz291819's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Huntsville, Al
Posts: 5,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by curtishd View Post

According to hdbeat.com CBS will be offers the NCAA mens basketball Finsl Four in 3D at theaters and even just maybe via cable or satellite.

This year, it'll just be theaters, since there won't be any 3D channels on cable/sat yet. Though, they may use some footage for demos.

Currently testing 3D with Sammy DLP, shutter glasses, and HTPC
taz291819 is offline  
post #10 of 27 Old 03-13-2010, 06:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bdraw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tampa FL 33629
Posts: 2,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
DirecTV has only announced compatibility with the new Panasonic 3DTVs, and they are evidently doing it by going outside the spec. That being said, I fully expect all the new 3DTVs to work, but if you want to play it safe, but the Panasonic (not to mention Panasonic's 3D demos at CES looked the best, so that is probably the way to go anyways).

Ben
How good could it be if it isn't HD?
Engadget HD
bdraw is offline  
post #11 of 27 Old 03-13-2010, 06:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bdraw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tampa FL 33629
Posts: 2,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post

ESPN had always said they would do 720p60 side-by-side.

I agree that this is the most likely format ESPN will choose, but so far ESPN has refused to share its preferred format. Do you have a link or something where ESPN said what 3D format it would use?

Ben
How good could it be if it isn't HD?
Engadget HD
bdraw is offline  
post #12 of 27 Old 03-13-2010, 07:11 AM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw View Post

I agree that this is the most likely format ESPN will choose, but so far ESPN has refused to share its preferred format. Do you have a link or something where ESPN said what 3D format it would use?

I thought I had read that in the Engadget coverage of the CES, but I just went through those posts again and could not find it. I think it was assumed by a commenter, since all their channels are 720p, and this format would make the most sense for fast moving sports.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #13 of 27 Old 03-13-2010, 07:25 AM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by taz291819 View Post

Yeppers. That's the beauty of these different methods, they can easily be converted to other display methods. I do know for a fact that 3D content can be scaled, as I have quite a few 3D 720p samples, and they look fine scaled to 1080p. I also have samples using the interlaced method (Sensio), and those are converted and scaled fine to 1080p.

There hasn't been a method yet that Stereoscopic Player hasn't been able to convert. Nice piece of software indeed.

Yes, but your Stereoscopic Player is not just a scaler, it is also a 3D reformatter.

Generally, 3D formats where the left and right images are interleaved at a frame level, such as side-by-side, top-bottom and frame sequential, can survive scaling operations and compression.

Pixel-level interleaved formats, such as line interleaved, column interleaved, and checkerboard, can not be scaled and won't survive a 4:4:4 to 4:2:0 transformation. They require to split the 3D signal into two separate 2D images, scale them independently, and then re-assemble them again into a 3D format.

Such a format conversion will result in the artifacts of both 3D formats being present in the output signal. If you convert from a side-by-side signal (half horizontal res) to a top-bottom or line interleaved (half vertical), then you will end up with a quarter of your original resolution, half horizontal and half vertical.

Conversion to and from frame packing or frame sequential (full) won't introduce any additional artifacts, since those formats don't degrade the resolution or frame rate.

This also goes for your 720p SBS to 1080p SBS conversion, which is a simple scaling operation without reformatting. Since both are horizontally challenged, you won't have any additional degradations.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #14 of 27 Old 03-13-2010, 08:50 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw View Post

I agree that this is the most likely format ESPN will choose, but so far ESPN has refused to share its preferred format. Do you have a link or something where ESPN said what 3D format it would use?

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...s_3D_Plans.php
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #15 of 27 Old 03-13-2010, 09:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
davehancock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY (near Buffalo)
Posts: 5,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:

There is a contridiction in one of the statements there:

Quote:


ESPN will be compressing the left-eye and right-eye images in the horizontal plane and "putting one on top of the other," said Bailey, which doesn't require any additional capacity.

"Compressing in the horizontal plane", to me, says side by side, not "one on top of the other".

Also if they used 720p over/under then we would end up with 360p! (360x1280) That seems pretty extreme!

Dave Hancock
davehancock is offline  
post #16 of 27 Old 03-13-2010, 01:48 PM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by davehancock View Post

There is a contridiction in one of the statements there:


"Compressing in the horizontal plane", to me, says side by side, not "one on top of the other".

Also if they used 720p over/under then we would end up with 360p! (360x1280) That seems pretty extreme!

I guess you could skew that meaning of "horizontal plane" to mean horizontally squeezed outwards...

Yes, 720p top-and-bottom would mean 1280x360p per eye, yet that is exactly the format they put into HDMI 1.4a. The spec would allow 720p side-by-side(half), with 640x720p per eye, but that is not in the list of mandatory formats.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #17 of 27 Old 03-13-2010, 02:13 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:


“It's some of the preprocessing [capabilities] they don't have,” Pontual says. “Part of that is done at the program producer, and part of it is done at DirecTV.”

Pontual says DirecTV will likely use a slightly higher bitrate for 3D than it currently uses for its normal MPEG-4 HD streams, but he wouldn't give a specific number. He did dismiss the notion that fitting 3D in the same bitrate as 2D HD, by using the side-by-side interleaved format, means cutting the horizontal resolution in half.

“That's absolutely not true,” he says. “It would only be half if you were transmitting identical left- and right-eye images. 3D already gives me a gain, as every odd pixel to one eye is representing an even pixel to the other one. If you're smart in how you're picking pixels, you can get a very high horizontal resolution.”

http://hardware.broadcastnewsroom.co....jsp?id=992058
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #18 of 27 Old 03-13-2010, 03:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Note the 2008 article quoting Pontual does not say that you get full 1920 horizontal pixel resolution. It inmplied to me that you only get 960 horizontal resolution since he states "as every odd pixel to one eye is representing an even pixel to the other" but of course my interpretation of his quote may not be correct but if not what does it mean?
walford is offline  
post #19 of 27 Old 03-13-2010, 03:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
davehancock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY (near Buffalo)
Posts: 5,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post

Quote:


Originally Posted by davehancock
There is a contridiction in one of the statements there:


"Compressing in the horizontal plane", to me, says side by side, not "one on top of the other".

Also if they used 720p over/under then we would end up with 360p! (360x1280) That seems pretty extreme!

I guess you could skew that meaning of "horizontal plane" to mean horizontally squeezed outwards...

That's pretty much the standard definition of side by side. From the HDMI 1.4a spec (describing side by side):

Quote:


Side-by-Side (Half) is one of the HDMI 3D video format structures indicated by the 3D_Structure
field and is composed of two stereoscopic pictures: Left and Right which are sub-sampled to half
resolution on the horizontal axis
, and defined as shown in Figure 8-5.

So the statement IS a contradicition!

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post

Yes, 720p top-and-bottom would mean 1280x360p per eye, yet that is exactly the format they put into HDMI 1.4a. The spec would allow 720p side-by-side(half), with 640x720p per eye, but that is not in the list of mandatory formats.

But 1080i side by side is!

Dave Hancock
davehancock is offline  
post #20 of 27 Old 03-13-2010, 04:33 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

Note the 2008 article quoting Pontual does not say that you get full 1920 horizontal pixel resolution. It inmplied to me that you only get 960 horizontal resolution since he states "as every odd pixel to one eye is representing an even pixel to the other" but of course my interpretation of his quote may not be correct but if not what does it mean?

Could he be referring to the 2D+Delta encoding method?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2D_plus_Delta

http://wapedia.mobi/en/2D%2BDelta
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #21 of 27 Old 03-13-2010, 04:35 PM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by davehancock View Post

That's pretty much the standard definition of side by side. From the HDMI 1.4a spec (describing side by side):

Quote:
Side-by-Side (Half) is one of the HDMI 3D video format structures indicated by the 3D_Structure
field and is composed of two stereoscopic pictures: Left and Right which are sub-sampled to half
resolution on the horizontal axis, and defined as shown in Figure 8-5.

So the statement IS a contradicition!

When moving the sub sampling table from the appendix to the mandatory section in HDMI 1.4a, they (accidently?) dropped the descriptions of the 4 different horizontal sub sampling positions. They are still in the old HDMI 1.4 spec.

They defined:
- odd left, odd right
- odd left, even right
- even left, odd right
- even left, even right

"odd" means that the first, third, fifth, etc. pixel of each line is taken.
"even" means that the second, fourth, sixth, etc. pixel is taken.

So, you could sample the "half" left image from the odd positions of the full-frame left eye image, and the "half" right image from the even positions of the the full-frame right eye image. If the two views, left and right, happen to have the same content in an area of the image, a smart upscaler could insert the "even" pixels from the right view into the left image, and vice versa the "odd" pixels from the left view into the right image. It would thus re-create the full 1920 pixel per line, per eye, without interpolation.

This is, of course, a bit bogus, since the whole point of 3D is that you have two *different* images for the two eyes. But, I guess, if Blu-ray can do with an extra 40 to 50% for the second view, there should be some similarities.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #22 of 27 Old 03-13-2010, 04:52 PM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Could he be referring to the 2D+Delta encoding method?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2D_plus_Delta

No, "2D plus Delta" is, roughly, what the MVC codec on 3D Blu-ray does. This would require new codec support in the set top boxes, which they most likely can not do on the existing hardware.

He is just nice-talking side-by-side(half), about the same way how manufacturers claim that checkerboard encoding doesn't really mean half resolution per eye.

By the way, don't confuse this with "2D plus Depth", which has found its way into the HDMI 1.4 spec. This is incompatible with the current crop of 3D displays and would require additional processing.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #23 of 27 Old 03-13-2010, 05:34 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post

No, "2D plus Delta" is, roughly, what the MVC codec on 3D Blu-ray does. This would require new codec support in the set top boxes, which they most likely can not do on the existing hardware.

He is just nice-talking side-by-side(half), about the same way how manufacturers claim that checkerboard encoding doesn't really mean half resolution per eye.

By the way, don't confuse this with "2D plus Depth", which has found its way into the HDMI 1.4 spec. This is incompatible with the current crop of 3D displays and would require additional processing.

2D+Delta is part of MPEG 4. DirecTV is using MPEG4 now. So their equipment is MPEG4 compatible as I understand it. This is not correct?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #24 of 27 Old 03-13-2010, 07:21 PM
Senior Member
 
scarabaeus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

2D+Delta is part of MPEG 4. DirecTV is using MPEG4 now. So their equipment is MPEG4 compatible as I understand it. This is not correct?

I'm not sure, that might be. But, decoding the 2 streams from MVC requires twice the DSP power than a single H.264 stream. The current boxes might not have enough power. And then the box has to assemble the two images from the MVC stream into one "frame packing" video frame. Again, might not work on current hardware.
scarabaeus is offline  
post #25 of 27 Old 03-13-2010, 08:01 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus View Post

I'm not sure, that might be. But, decoding the 2 streams from MVC requires twice the DSP power than a single H.264 stream. The current boxes might not have enough power. And then the box has to assemble the two images from the MVC stream into one "frame packing" video frame. Again, might not work on current hardware.

Do you happen to know who is providing the SoC in DirecTV's MPEG4 complaint HD DVR's and HD STB's?

Would it be the Panasonic Unipher SoC?
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #26 of 27 Old 03-14-2010, 06:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Do you happen to know who is providing the SoC in DirecTV's MPEG4 complaint HD DVR's and HD STB's?

HR21-3 have Broadcom BCM7401.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #27 of 27 Old 03-14-2010, 07:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
taz291819's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Huntsville, Al
Posts: 5,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
The HR20s use Broadcom SoCs also, but with a little bit more processing power. The HR21/22/23 all use the same Broadcom chip, with less processing power.

Currently testing 3D with Sammy DLP, shutter glasses, and HTPC
taz291819 is offline  
Reply 3D Source Components

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off