3D broadcasts won't be in hi-def - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 60 Old 01-14-2010, 06:02 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Maurice2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Manhattan, NYC
Posts: 783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
"None of these broadcasts will be in high definition, by the way. A 3-D broadcast requires a lot more data than a regular HDTV channel; it won't fit in the same bandwidth unless you sacrifice some picture information. As a result, 3-D cable, satellite and Web broadcasts will offer only half the resolution (clarity) of HDTV. Only Blu-ray players will produce full, hi-def 3-D images."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/te...ZgBq4URqJQ+2cQ
Maurice2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 60 Old 01-14-2010, 06:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
whitetrash66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,049
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 20
hmmm

from Engadgets article on how it is going to be done:

http://hd.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd...de-by-side-3d/

"But for side by side systems like DirecTV is using, a single 1080p frame that holds both the right and left eye's images is sent at 24 frames per second. The TV receives this signal, splits it into two frames, displays them sequentially and then stretches 'em out. Obviously this isn't as good as Blu-ray, but it uses way less bandwidth and makes it so DirecTV can just release a firmware update instead of replacing all the set-top boxes."

It still sounds like it would be in the realm of hi def, but more like a 720p or 1080i then a 1080p.... but maybe someone could explain it better?
whitetrash66 is offline  
post #3 of 60 Old 01-14-2010, 08:15 AM
Advanced Member
 
Neceo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
No broadcasts out there can match blu-rays anyhow. Everything is 720p or 1080i. Direct TV that states 1080p is heavily compressed that they might of been better off just doing 720p or 1080i anyhow.

So it doesn't matter if the broadcasts won't be 1080p 3d .. no broadcast now is really 1080p anyhow
Neceo is offline  
post #4 of 60 Old 01-14-2010, 08:41 AM
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
1080i/60 contains 30 1080p frames per second so it requires the same bandwicth as 1080p/30 requires and 1080p/30 requires more bandwidth then 1080p/24 which is what current HD Blu-rays are recorded in which they can send their content to HDTVs which can accept up to1080p/60 in. I understand that the 3D Blu-Rays require the ability to send 1080p/48 to the 3D TVs that can play them.
walford is offline  
post #5 of 60 Old 01-14-2010, 09:01 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Maurice2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Manhattan, NYC
Posts: 783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The statement in the NY Times quoted above says: "A 3-D broadcast requires a lot more data than a regular HDTV channel... As a result 3-D... broadcasts will offer only half the resolution (clarity) of HDTV." Since regular HDTV is either 720p or 1080i, this would mean that 3-D broadcasts won't reach 720p or 1080i. Where will they be? 480p (EDTV)? or somewhere in between?

Full HD (1080p) is, of course, the domain of Blu-ray.
Maurice2 is offline  
post #6 of 60 Old 01-14-2010, 09:35 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Maurice2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Manhattan, NYC
Posts: 783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If a football game is broadcast in 3D, I imagine a 2D version will be available as well (for all those unfortunate enough(!) to only have a 2D TV). So what will the 3D TV add to the experience of the 2D TV? A little more depth. But at what price? Less clarity. Which one would you rather have: more clarity or more depth? It depends on how much clarity is sacrificed.
Maurice2 is offline  
post #7 of 60 Old 01-14-2010, 10:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
Neceo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i don't think clarity is going to be a big factor in broadcasts, but again all we can do is wait and see.

The demo i saw showed a soccer (or football depending where in the world you are from) game and it felt like you were there watching it in real life with the depth it gave
Neceo is offline  
post #8 of 60 Old 01-14-2010, 10:44 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Maurice2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Manhattan, NYC
Posts: 783
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neceo View Post

i don't think clarity is going to be a big factor in broadcasts

I agree, especially for games like football where depth is a major factor. For close-ups, it may make a significant difference. We'll see.
Maurice2 is offline  
post #9 of 60 Old 01-14-2010, 11:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,482
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 60
The loss of 3D broadcast will be minimal and really not perceptible. Why? Pictures will be transmitted in top-bottom mode meaning that they will be scaled down in vertical direction by half before transmtting and scaled up by two in the receiver. Such down/up scaling by 2 can be done extremely precisely. Any loss of information will be masked by the fact that pictures are compressed and in the 3D display. In the end, careful joint optimisation of scaling and compression will eliminate any perceivable loss of quality. By any means, compression factor is decisive for quality here. This is why Blue Ray will look better.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #10 of 60 Old 02-27-2010, 07:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 411
A few things:

- 3D does NOT require "a lot" more bandwidth. It requires, at most, a 50% increase since, with digital compression, redundant information between the two views can be eliminated.
- In the case of a network like ESPN, they use 720p at 60fps, which means it can still be 720p, but at 30fps per eye.
- At least in the beginning, sporting events will be covered in the same way earlier HD events were covered: with separate cameras, trucks and crews. The reason? Not every camera angle lends itself to 3D, and not every 3D angle makes good 2D. So, you run two operations side by side until 3D is more popular and they can start mixing the two a bit more.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #11 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 01:13 PM
Member
 
monitormaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Westminster, CA
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I saw the Direct TV 3D demo at CES and it looked fine. As it was explained to me, left eye and right eye are broadcast side by side, so the resolution of each image is 960x1080. Since 1280x720 is considered hi def (720p) and total pixel count is only .92Mpixels, I guess 960x1080 (1.04Mpixels) is HD also. Certainly better than DVD (720x480).
monitormaven is offline  
post #12 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 02:56 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
3D broadcasts won't be in hi-def

That isn't true.

HD starts with the 720P format that has a total of 921,600 pixels.

The 1080 "half" 3D format = 1920x540 = 1,036,800 pixels - more than the 720P HD format

The true statement would be:

3D broadcasts won't be in Full HD
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #13 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 05:26 PM
Member
 
monitormaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Westminster, CA
Posts: 25
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
You are correct that 3D broadcasts won't be in full HD if you define that as 1920x1080 resolution. However, the ATSC spec defines 1280x720 (720p) as HD also.

The DirectTV broadcasts will be side by side rather than over/under, so your math is wrong. Check out:

http://hd.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd...de-by-side-3d/
monitormaven is offline  
post #14 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 05:36 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 monitormaven View Post

You are correct that 3D broadcasts won't be in full HD if you define that as 1920x1080 resolution. However, the ATSC spec defines 1280x720 (720p) as HD also.

"Full HD" is the marketing moniker that appeared about 3+ years ago to denote 1920x1080P

Quote:
The DirectTV broadcasts will be side by side rather than over/under, so your math is wrong. Check out:

http://hd.engadget.com/2010/01/12/hd...de-by-side-3d/

Same thing = 960x1080 =1,036,800 pixels.

Side/Side preserves the full 1080 V res while O/U (also called Top and Bottom) preserves the full H res.

3D formats:

http://www.doremilabs.com/appnotes/D...conversion.pdf
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #15 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 05:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
AJSJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sonoma County, CA, US
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You guys obviously weren't around when broadcast HD was being introduced.

The "fight" over 720p60 and 1080i60 was fought and, well, drawn. The number of pixels per second (~true information content) for the two formats is not greatly different and the perceived vertical resolution of the interlaced 1080 was no better than the non-interlaced 720. The "1920" part of the 1920x1080 is also often compromised either during capture or during compression along the chain so that the 1920 is often down to <1440 etc. Sports networks (and some others) chose 720p for its fast motion benefit.

The "Full HD" moniker is marketing from the 1080 boys to try to eliminate the "stigma" of interlacing and the need for deinterlacing etc so they say "Full" 1080p but neglect to mention that it's actually 1080p30 vs 720p60 - smoke and mirrors. If I got 720p60 for each eye and no motion/interlace and fewer compression artifacts, I'd be very happy.
AJSJones is offline  
post #16 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 05:50 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 AJSJones View Post

You guys obviously weren't around when broadcast HD was being introduced.

Got my first HDTV in 1998 - a Zenith Pro 900 FPTV with a Stewart 144" 16x9 screen

Had to stay up late to watch Jay Leno in HD because that was about it when HDTV started becoming available. That and the endless "trailer" from HBO months later (NYC).

Quote:
The "fight" over 720p60 and 1080i60 was fought and, well, drawn. The number of pixels per second (~true information content) for the two formats is not greatly different and the perceived vertical resolution of the interlaced 1080 was no better than the non-interlaced 720. The "1920" part of the 1920x1080 is also often compromised either during capture or during compression along the chain so that the 1920 is often down to <1440 etc. Sports networks (and some others) chose 720p for its fast motion benefit.

Seeing as how 720P is only used for broadcast HD it has always had a leg up on 1080i - due to it's superior refresh rate it is perfect for sports. Resolution is not the be all to end all when comparing HD formats - until you get to 1080x60P

Quote:
The "Full HD" moniker is marketing from the 1080 boys to try to eliminate the "stigma" of interlacing and the need for deinterlacing etc so they say "Full" 1080p but neglect to mention that it's actually 1080p30 vs 720p60 - smoke and mirrors. If I got 720p60 for each eye and no motion/interlace and fewer compression artifacts, I'd be very happy.

Actually it was used by the LCD manufacturers who had poured R + D into that display tech (as opposed to PDP) and were successful in manufacturing 1080P HDTVs for affordable prices, while over on the PDP side, only the super expensive Pioneer PDP was 1080P. All others were 720P or 768P
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #17 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 06:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
AJSJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sonoma County, CA, US
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Mine was a Marquee 8500LC on a "cheap" Draper 1.0 screen/light control blind. 100" diagonal didn't even half fill it but no hotspots or angle issues.

So I wasn't following the tiny HD sets much and I wasn't aware who the drivers were behind the 1080p FULL HD hype campaign, so thanks for that. Electronics have moved on a ways since then so refreshing (and sorta interpolating) at crazy speeds is the name of the game, although 1080p60 source material is virtually non existent (maybe some PC/gaming stuff) so 1080p30 (or 1080p24 on BD) is what needs to be considered when discussing the "poor resolution" of 720p60 - as you say, resolution in vertical and horizontal isn't the whole thing, we have to think of the resolution in time dimension as well - and now, this new area of AVS is for the 4th D
AJSJones is offline  
post #18 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 07:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
davehancock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY (near Buffalo)
Posts: 5,412
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Quote:


The "Full HD" moniker is marketing from the 1080 boys to try to eliminate the "stigma" of interlacing and the need for deinterlacing etc so they say "Full" 1080p but neglect to mention that it's actually 1080p30 vs 720p60 - smoke and mirrors. If I got 720p60 for each eye and no motion/interlace and fewer compression artifacts, I'd be very happy.

Actually it was used by the LCD manufacturers who had poured R + D into that display tech (as opposed to PDP) and were successful in manufacturing 1080P HDTVs for affordable prices, while over on the PDP side, only the super expensive Pioneer PDP was 1080P. All others were 720P or 768P

Other Plasmas (Panny, Samsung, LG) have had 1080p for a couple of years (about the same time LCD went that way). Also, it was not so much a matter of R&D but, rather investment in manufacturing infrastructure. The LCDs also used 768p - mostly because that was one of the computer display standards.

Dave Hancock
davehancock is offline  
post #19 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 07:34 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 AJSJones View Post

Mine was a Marquee 8500LC on a "cheap" Draper 1.0 screen/light control blind. 100" diagonal didn't even half fill it but no hotspots or angle issues.

So I wasn't following the tiny HD sets much and I wasn't aware who the drivers were behind the 1080p FULL HD hype campaign, so thanks for that. Electronics have moved on a ways since then so refreshing (and sorta interpolating) at crazy speeds is the name of the game, although 1080p60 source material is virtually non existent (maybe some PC/gaming stuff) so 1080p30 (or 1080p24 on BD) is what needs to be considered when discussing the "poor resolution" of 720p60 - as you say, resolution in vertical and horizontal isn't the whole thing, we have to think of the resolution in time dimension as well - and now, this new area of AVS is for the 4th D

Naaaa . . .

Let's resurect the old 720P versus 1080i HD format argument! J/K

One of the resolution formats for 3D BD is 1920x1080x60i for content shot with HD cameras like concerts and such.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #20 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 07:44 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 davehancock View Post

Other Plasmas (Panny, Samsung, LG) have had 1080p for a couple of years (about the same time LCD went that way). Also, it was not so much a matter of R&D but, rather investment in manufacturing infrastructure. The LCDs also used 768p - mostly because that was one of the computer display standards.

The "Full HD" markting campaign started Q4 2005. In January 2006, there was the 50" Pioneer 1080P PDP and I think the Panasonic 65" PDP. All other PDPs were 720P and 768P. I know - I bought my 5053 Samsung PDP ($2200) then and looked at every single HDTV available. The 1080P LCDs by numerous CEMs in numerous sizes, ran about $800 to $1000 more. Those two 1080P PDPs were high 4 figure price tags ($8000+).

I am talking about what was available at B & M stores. I went to 3:

Best Buy
Circuit City
Brands Mart
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #21 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 07:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
AJSJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sonoma County, CA, US
Posts: 755
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Naaaa . . .

Let's resurect the old 720P versus 1080i HD format argument! J/K

One of the resolution formats for 3D BD is 1920x1080x60i for content shot with HD cameras like concerts and such.

Where motion clarity is less of a deal, then that would be nice (60i for each i or 30i for each i, errr eye ?)- they might be able to keep most of the necessary information for the full resolution for each eye since compression will not wreak so much havoc then.... Concerts, plays, ballet, opera would all be perfect material - one is already looking into a (big) box where the action is, and one cannot move around the theater in real life to "break" the 3D feel. That would be where 3D HT would excel - along will 11.3 audio.
AJSJones is offline  
post #22 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 07:48 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 AJSJones View Post

Where motion clarity is less of a deal, then that would be nice (60i for each i or 30i for each i, errr eye ?)- they might be able to keep most of the necessary information for the full resolution for each eye since compression will not wreak so much havoc then.... Concerts, plays, ballet, opera would all be perfect material - one is already looking into a (big) box where the action is, and one cannot move around the theater in real life to "break" the 3D feel. That would be where 3D HT would excel - along will 11.3 audio.

That will be 1920x1080x60i per eye just like the 1920x1080x24P is per eye.

I saw U2-3D at my local IMAX 3D theater. WOW! Can't wait till it comes to 3D BD.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #23 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 08:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
davehancock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY (near Buffalo)
Posts: 5,412
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

The "Full HD" markting campaign started Q4 2005. In January 2006, there was the 50" Pioneer 1080P PDP and I think the Panasonic 65" PDP. All other PDPs were 720P and 768P. I know - I bought my 5053 Samsung PDP ($2200) then and looked at every single HDTV available. The 1080P LCDs by numerous CEMs in numerous sizes, ran about $800 to $1000 more. Those two 1080P PDPs were high 4 figure price tags ($8000+).

You were right at the cusp of the change (which has been pretty much complete for a couple of years now (except for the cheap PDPs and small LCDs)

Dave Hancock
davehancock is offline  
post #24 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 08:33 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 davehancock View Post

You were right at the cusp of the change (which has been pretty much complete for a couple of years now (except for the cheap PDPs and small LCDs)

A couple of years would be late 2007, early 2008. 2+ years after I bought my HDTV. That sounds about right.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #25 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 09:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

A few things:

- 3D does NOT require "a lot" more bandwidth. It requires, at most, a 50% increase since, with digital compression, redundant information between the two views can be eliminated.

Incorrect. At most it would be 100% extra. On average it should be around 50% extra.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #26 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 09:29 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 Joe Bloggs View Post

Incorrect. At most it would be 100% extra. On average it should be around 50% extra.

That's not the way MVC works. It works on a prediction basis to reduce the necessary storage requirement to approx. 50% more than a normal BD even though the original data entering the encoder is 100% more because of the 2 views (S3D) as opposed to a single view (2D)
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #27 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 09:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

That's not the way MVC works. It works on a prediction basis to reduce the necessary storage requirement to approx. 50% more than a normal BD even though the original data entering the encoder is 100% more because of the 2 views (S3D) as opposed to a single view (2D)

Yes, average 50% more data, maximum 100% more data (the 100% extra for when it can't see anything similar/any redundancies between the left & right views like if an object passes right in front of one eye but hasn't yet got to the left eye, very noisy/grainy video would also make the required bitrate go up (see interview below)).

Here's Don Eklund, executive vice president of advanced technologies for Sony Pictures opinion of what the additional bitrates will be:
Quote:


"it will affect the amount of added value [bonus features] that we'll have room for"

"it's not really a fixed percentage"

"the dependent view, which is ordinarily the right eye view, that percentage could be anywhere from
from say 40% up to even 70% of the base view"

He basically says animated titles will be okay with lower bitrates (around 16-18 mbps) but with noisy/grainy titles (eg. a rock concert) the bitrate demands will go up significantly.
http://twit.tv/htg4

Play the interview in the link above (or download the interview and play it from around 9:43 into the interview).
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #28 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 10:04 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 Joe Bloggs View Post

Yes, average 50% more data, maximum 100% more data (the 100% extra for when it can't see anything similar/any redundancies between the left & right views like if an object passes right in front of one eye but hasn't yet got to the left eye, very noisy/grainy video would also make the required bitrate go up (see interview below)).

In a 90+ minute movie? That will never happen ALL the time during the movie.

Quote:


Here's Don Eklund, executive vice president of advanced technologies for Sony Pictures opinion of what the additional bitrates will be:


http://twit.tv/htg4

Play the interview in the link above (or download the interview and play it from around 9:43 into the interview).

Starts on page 38:

http://www.img.lx.it.pt/pcs2007/pres...07-Plenary.pdf
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #29 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 10:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

In a 90+ minute movie? That will never happen ALL the time during the movie.

I never said it would happen all the time, but at some points it will need the higher bitrates and at other bitrates lower ones, on average it may need 50% extra and it could need up to 100% extra (as far as I see it - though the Sony person says around 40% extra to around 70% extra).


That's basically an advertisement for the multiview codec. It's different from real world results. Do you think that the Vice President of advanced technologies at Sony pictures is totally incorrect?

Actually, for this thread, which is about 3D broadcasting, is this talk about efficiency of the MVC codec relavent to the methods those broadcasters will actually be using? Surely the broadcasters currently using 3D won't be using the MVC codec (at least for the short term) - is that right?
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #30 of 60 Old 02-28-2010, 10:28 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 Joe Bloggs View Post

I never said it would happen all the time, but at some points it will need the higher bitrates and at other bitrates lower ones, on average it may need 50% extra and it could need up to 100% extra (as far as I see it - though the Sony person says around 40% extra to around 70% extra).

The only way a 3D BD would have 100% more data on it than a 2D BD is if it did happen all the time - which it won't. That is the "real world."

Quote:


That's basically an advertisement for the multiview codec. It's different from real world results.

No it's not. It explains how MVC works

Quote:


Do you think that the Vice President of advanced technologies at Sony pictures is totally incorrect?

Do you think the people at Panasonic are incorrect? They were the ones who said up to about 50%. And they were the ones who did all the work to set the standard the BDA accepted for 3D BD.
Lee Stewart is offline  
Reply 3D Tech Talk

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