3D video processors?

CES is coming. Problem is there is no home standard, no software and few displays. Ask in 1 year.

this adapter will cross convert....


http://www.doremilabs.com/ftp/appnot...conversion.pdf


Cyberlink will do 2-d to 3-d conversion.

You still need a display that's compatible with some form of 3-D. The o/p seems to be asking whether a video processor can "trick" a regular 2-D projector into displaying a 3-D image.

The answer to that is no. The projector or display needs to be a 3-D model.

You can do 3D with a 2D projector....you just need two of them.

Does this mean that a 3D BluRay Players or 3D broadcasting to come would be useless on a 2D panel? Legacy = AUDIENCE/PROFITS --- Proprietary 3Dto3D = LOSSES

Business wise that would not make sense because of the limited 3D panels in the marketplace throughout the planet for years to come - this would mean that there can't truly be any profits unless BD and broadcast could be doable on 3D worked on 2D panels or a converter system could make it so - after all look how many years it's taken BD to become mainstream and they aren't truly fully arrived yet. It seems that there must be some kind of legacy in the 3D business plan to meet 2D panels that number in the hundreds of millions of panels otherwise no one would make a profit and that's the only reason these guys are in business. The "Build it and they shall come" cannot work in this distressed economy if the customer audience takes 5 years to fill the 3D arena.

Somebody must be working on a convertor system otherwise why would you build all these 3D players if they required a 3D panel that won't be in volume for many years? The OP question is excellent as it seems Anchor Bay et al would need another angle (like 3D) to survive the future. It seems that a 3D panel would be able to perform 3D on the fly whereas a 3D device would make 3D available to a 2D panel with glasses otherwise revenue and customer base is going to be rather non-existent for content providers to sell to.

Your question is akin to asking why someone doesn't make a convertor box that will turn a regular standard-def TV into an HDTV. You can't make something out of nothing.

Hey, Josh I wanted to go off topic to comment how much I enjoy reading your Blu-ray reviews. You are a wordsmith extraordinaire.

Hello guys I never seen these 3D blu ray disk before, and yet its still not available here in your area..

not useless, just not 3D... I believe the 3D bluray spec is such that a 3D disc will still play on non-3D players, but only in 2D (it uses one of the 1080p/60 signals... one eye), and a 3D BD player will not send 3D to a 2D player because the 2D display will not have the protocol that identifies it as a 3D display (thus the player will send 2D). All the new equipment will be backward compatible (i.e. no loss of prior capability with the new hardware), but the only old hardware that will be forward compatible (capable of playing or viewing 3D content) will be the PS3 with a firmware update. It is possible that there will be 3rd party solutions that convert 1080p/120 sources to 1080p/60Hz 3d signals (30fps per eye), but that would look really bad in most cases. Aside from each display technology's limitations for 3D, the real problem lies in the input limitations of almost all previous displays... even 120Hz and 240Hz displays only accept 60Hz inputs.

so the update will be called Playstation 3D?

In all seriousness, I'm glad you asked about video processors. My question is what about the receivers?

I've heard of the Blu-Ray discs, special cable/sat channels and displays (projectors, RP DLP's, LCD's and plasmas) but no AVR's. I hope that the AVR's which pass 1080p24 and 60 will pass 1080p48, but I seriously doubt it.

IMHO any AVR that will pass through 1080p/60 will also pass through any 1080p content with a lower frame rate since today they apparently pass through 1080p/50, 1080p/30 and 1080p/25 in addition to 1080p/24. However, a more significant problem will be that when a Blu-Ray player is outputting 10080p/48 consisting of 2 1080p/24 data streams it is doing so with HDMI 1.4 so an HDMI passing it through would also have to be HMI 1.4 capable,.

Onkyo Planinng HDMI 1.4 AVRs For Spring Bow

http://www.twice.com/article/443282-...Spring_Bow.php


RD-7505 - Sherwood's First Receiver with HDMI 1.4 Capability

http://www.geekiegadgets.com/2010/rd...-4-capability/


Sony's First 3D-Capable Receiver, the STR-DN1010, Costs $500

http://gizmodo.com/5474837/sonys-fir...1010-costs-500

Here is a post pointing out that new AVR's are required that handle HDMI 1.4 such as the new models in the the above post:

http://hdguru.com/3d-hdtv-and-hdmi-explained/1336/

Few interesting tidbits:
1. you don't actually need HDMI 1.4 to do 3D. There are actually going to be two standard formats to do this. One is 540P (in the form of 1080i) where each eye will get a different image. This is probably how the PS3 will work.

The second format is going to be 1920 x 2205 p where each frame will hold two FULL HD frames one above the other with 45 lines of blanking between them. This format will require 10Gbps (the full bandwidth of HDMI 1.3/4) to transmit.

2. Since that is the case, there is one huge issue holding back processors from doing processing - they'll need not only to do it twice as fast as before, but they'll need to do it twice simultaneously with memory buffers for each eye.

3. The other interesting feature in HDMI 1.4 is transmitting audio back from the TV to the AVR.

Does anyone know if existing processors are even capable of doing this type of thing, or will they need to accomplish their work using new HDMI 1.4 chips and dual image processing chips?

AFAIK, Sony maintains that the PS3 will be upgradeable to handle 3D BD with it's Full HD per eye resolution. All BD players are hardware based. The PS3 is software based with it Cell BE.


According to this it will be 6.75 Gbps:

http://hdguru.com/3d-hdtv-and-hdmi-explained/1336/

That is the 3D BD format.

CBL and SAT will use different 3D formats that will result in half the resolution per eye due to hardware and bandwidth limitations


Yes - the Audio Return Channel. Could you give me an exampe of how this feature would be beneficial to someone?

It is not a bandwidth issue which makes the use of HDMI 1.3 not viable for using it for FHD3D output from a blue-ray 3D player. It is the fact that a HDMI 1.3 receiver chip does not have the ability to splt the incoming content so that it can be handled separatlly for each eye. This feature is one that was new with the introduction of HDMI 1.4.

That isn't the job of the receiver. That is the job of the 3DTV.

The receivers job is to split the audio from the video, then send the video (intact) on to the display.

If it is not the feature in the HDMI 1.4 interface spec that facilitates the support of applicastions such as 3d TV by enabling dual steam content such as the receipt of dual steam 1080p. Then why is HDMI1.4 required for the implementations of FHD3D for Blu-Ray players if as you say the HDTV itself is required to handle all of the video processing required for FHD3D TV after the content is received andpassed to it by the receiver chip?

The 3D BD player isn't sending dual stream 1920x1080P. It is sending single stream 1920x2205P

Since the 1920x2205/24 content contains two separate 1920x1080p/24 sets of data then for each eye many consider that dual steams of data.
In any case since you do not consider this the reason why a HDMI 1.4 is required over HDMI 1.3 which both havethe same 10.2 bandwidth limit what do you consider the reaon that HDMI 1.4 is required?

from what I have read its seems that although HDMI1.3 has the potential bandwith to carry the 3D content. most HDMI1.3 ports are not wired to utilize the full bandwidth. For this reason, some 1.3 hardware (like the Sony PS3) will be capable of sending 3D content over the 1.3 connections with a firmware update, but most others will not. Not super technical, I know, but true I think nonetheless.

And many would be considered incorrect.

There are 24 FPS leaving the 3D BD player. Each frame is 1920x2205. That is a single stream

If you are driving on the highway and a car carrier passes you carrying 6 cars, did you just get passed by 6 cars or did you just get passed by a car carrier?


Read the paragraph right under the heading; Surround Sound Receivers:

http://hdguru.com/3d-hdtv-and-hdmi-explained/1336/

I now get it. The 3D advocates wanted a way to send the video content of both eyes separatly and concurenlty to the destination since the contents were "filmed" separatly at the same time. Then those comapnies involved with the HDMI specifications came up with the blocked format 1920x2205@24fps resoluiton which is contined in the HDMI 1.4 spec and is met by those sending and receiving chips that meet the 1.4 spec.
By using a blocked format the isssues of actual display refresh rates and resolutons are left up to the designers of the HDTV sets and the 45 blanking rows between the two1920x1080 frames in the block allows enough time for the receiving units firmware to split the block apart as it receives it from the chip.

Actually it was Panasonic that did all the work on 3D BD.

Yes, there are two views (L&R) but they had to come up with a way not to use 100% more storage for a 3D BD than a regular BD and at the same time, make a 3D BD backwards compatible to all legacy BD players so they could play a 3D BD abiet in 2D only. So Panasonic chose the video codec AVC MVC which was already in place and would answer all the issues I listed:

http://www.nokiaresearch.com/files/3D_Video.pdf


The blanking between the frames defines the dimensions of the two frames contained within it. So they can easily be seperated into L&R. It seperates the top frame's bottom hortizontial dimension from the bottom frame's top hortizontial dimension

So, it looks like you actually are not getting 1920x1080p (2+ million pixels) per eye as the studios would like you to believe. The whole "Full HD 3D" claim is a misnomer, hence the talk of only 1080p per eye (no mention of the horizontal resolution per eye).

You can see why they did this (using only 50% more headroom) due to a max bitrate specification for Blu-ray that was predicated on 2D 1920x1080p/24 presentations. They're shoe-horning in 3D after the fact and didn't want to hit the proverbial brick wall.

As for broadcast 3D, you are basically dropping HD (or with most content providers,
'HD-Lite" with gobs of compression artifacts) for 3D with gobs of compression artifacts. You're asked to have one or the other, not both.

Is this what WSR's current 3D article was mentioning about Sensio's spatial compression being utilized on top of the dual stream MPEG-4 MVC codec?

3D BD has two resolution formats (per eye)

Film = 1920x1080x24P
Video = 1920x1080x60i

Both are 2 MP's per eye


The AVC MVC codec is based on a prediction model. You don't need 100% more data to create the FHD3D L & R frames. And there is an opinion that 3D BD players will use 2X speed for 3D playback which raises the max bit rate from 40 to 60 Mbps


Yes - 3D on CBL and SAT will be 1 megapixels per eye instead of HD's 2 MP's total. But that is for 1080i HD channels. For 720P HD channels - 1MP is greater (1280x720 = 921,600 pixels)


This?

http://www.sensio.tv/Sites/sensio/mu...NG%20FINAL.pdf

Yes.

---

Hmmm... I didn't know about the upped read speed for 3D discs. I did, however, read about the 32 GB single-layered and 66.8 GB dual-layered discs Sony and Panasonic are wanting to start pressing (all players in the field would need a firmware update to read them). The replication tolerances and quality control would have to be extremely tight for what they're proposing.

However, wouldn't that eliminate the backwards-compatibility with regular players the studios crowed about? Also, besides upping the bitrate to 60 Megabits/sec, you'd more than likely then have to significantly increase the storage space of the discs to compensate for the extra data required (more video and/or audio information than ever before). I would think you'd need more than the space Sony and Panasonic were talking about for most 2 hour or longer, live-action 3D movies, in particular.

Is this something they may be contemplating for these speculated triple and quad-layered Blu-ray discs instead? You'd need all new players for those, and if 66.8 GB discs with tighter spiral packing are going to be difficult, I'd hate to think of the failure rate for 100 GB and 200 GB Blu-ray discs! I'd think you'd need to use white cotton gloves too as a mere finger print or dust particle would wreck havoc on those things (it doesn't take much to fowl up the playback of regular Blu-ray discs now). Maybe caddies (which was first contemplated for Blu-ray discs in the early stages of the game) will have to come back in style.