Which 3D format do you think the BDA will pick for Blu-ray? - Page 8

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.

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.

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

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/p...aySystems).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-cinem...ice_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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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


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

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.

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.

For 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.

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...

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?

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.

Does that TV have these specs?


http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article...081030/160508/

But you don't really want to use different technologies and workflows between the two versions.


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.

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.

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.

"


"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
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.