AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › 3D questions/clarification
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

3D questions/clarification

post #1 of 110
1/12/10 at 10:33pm
Thread Starter 
Ok so now we are officially in the 3D era of televisions I need some clarification from someone who may know. I plan on buying the Panasonic VT25 series in a few months. Until this morning I thought I would hook it up to my PS3 and have great 3D Blu-ray in 1080P if I wanted it. Than I remembered HDMI 1.3, from what I understand 1.3 cannot handle the bandwidth therefore the need for 1.4. So everything output from PS3 would end up being what 1080i/720p? Because the TV's need dual pictures and 1.3 cannot do dual 1080P pictures right?
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 110
1/13/10 at 7:48am
It's a blur who did the interview but someone did interview a Sony person at CES who said that the PS3 update will take care of the HDMI question regarding 1.3 vs the need for 1.4. On the same note, Marketsaw posted this info on their website:

Of note is Sony's PS3. From what I can see, Sony plans on using the Playstation 3 as the centerpiece of their company's S3D products, and justifiably so. The PS3 has the ability to update its firmware over the Internet whenever it needs to - and that includes 3D.

There will be two firmware updates in 2010 for the PS3: The first will add S3D GAMING functionality to the console. The second will bring S3D MOVIE functionality. To the best of my knowledge, these updates will be FREE and will certainly support their awesome new lineup of S3DHD televisions - including the new HDMI 1.4 spec.

Those firmware updates will obviously be preceded by game developers SDKs (Solution Development Kits) for the industry. That way we can anticipate a nice selection of S3D content for consumers when the time comes to upgrade.

Well that pretty much sums up the consoles as Microsoft is practically standing still with regards to S3D. However, in Microsoft standard operating procedure you can use a third party's solution to achieve it - for example, Next3D's fine technology for the XBOX 360.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 110
1/13/10 at 8:05am
Thread Starter 
I found it

"Remember how I've been telling you not to buy a new Blu-ray player, to wait until new 3D Blu-ray players with HDMI 1.4 connectors become available?

Well, forget all that.

The HDMI Licensing group has solved at least the Blu-ray side of the 3D problem. All devices with HDMI 1.3 and an upgrade connection method Blu-ray Live decks (including PS3), satellite receivers and cable set-top boxes can be upgraded to output 3D.

However, as with all things, there's a catch. Keep reading to see what you'll be giving up.

Unfortunately, you'll still need a new HDMI 1.4-enabled 3D HDTV to see the 3D effect. It's necessary because those HDTVs have dual-scanning capabilities: They can display near-simultaneous frames, one for each eye, to create the 3D illusion. Current HDTVs are only single-scan.

And you won't get full 1080p 3D via an upgraded HDMI 1.3 box, either just half or quarter resolution, depending on the source. HDMI 1.3 isn't powerful enough to stream near-simultaneous 1080p frames. From a full 1080p source such as Blu-ray or a satellite receiver, you'll instead get dual 1080i images to create 3D; from a cable box, you'll get dual 540i images. I've been told the difference between full 1080p 3D and 540i 3D is essentially the difference between Blu-ray and DVD, which for most people is not that big of a difference. I still think you'll want at least a 65-inch 3D HDTV, though, to really get an immersive 3D experience.

If you've got a non-BD Live player, you're SOL. But for everyone who just bought a Blu-ray Live player, breathe easier you just saved yourself around $400 and you're halfway to viewing Avatar at home next spring."

So yeah they do 1080i. Satellite and PS3, cable does 540i. Whew yesterday I thought I'd be looking at 540i for 3d, guess direcTV it is.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 110
1/13/10 at 1:04pm
^^^Could you provide a link?

Sony, Samsung, Panasonic, and Toshiba all announced (and demoed) new 3D BD players at CES. If SS3D could be simply distributed via an update for HDMI 1.3 players, then why wouldn't they do that (besides the obvious profit motive of selling new players)?

While HDMI 1.4 is in the specification for 3D Blu-ray, it's not a requirement for sending a 3D Blu-ray signal from a player to a television. That's why Sony's Playstation 3 can be firmware upgraded to be 3D Blu-ray compatible while only having HDMI 1.3 built into its hardware. What is required is a minimum bandwidth allowance in order for the player to send the signal out to the TV.

http://www.electronichouse.com/artic..._3d_compatible
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 110
1/13/10 at 1:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Dhereicome View Post

HDMI 1.3 isn't powerful enough to stream near-simultaneous 1080p frames.

HDMI 1.3 and 1.4 share the same bandwidth (10.2 Gbps) and FQ (340 Mhz)
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 110
1/13/10 at 8:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielo TM View Post

HDMI 1.3 and 1.4 share the same bandwidth (10.2 Gbps) and FQ (340 Mhz)

So what exactly is keeping current BD players from becoming 3D-compatible? With active shutter, the IR sync can be sent out from either the source device or the sink (display).
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 110
1/14/10 at 9:36pm
Thread Starter 
thanks for all the replys guys. I'm so confused, I went to Sony Style today and they had PS3 1080P 3D movies. I asked the guy but it's HDMI 1.3 what's up? He swears it does 1080P, as it's what the TV says is happening. So not too sure to be honest.

@scionracing - good name btw I have a Scion Tc but moving on...I think what's holding BD players back is only the ones with BD Live can be firmware upgraded to do 3D. Therefore earlier models/cheap models are cut out.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 110
1/15/10 at 5:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Dhereicome View Post

thanks for all the replys guys. I'm so confused, I went to Sony Style today and they had PS3 1080P 3D movies. I asked the guy but it's HDMI 1.3 what's up? He swears it does 1080P, as it's what the TV says is happening. So not too sure to be honest.

@scionracing - good name btw I have a Scion Tc but moving on...I think what's holding BD players back is only the ones with BD Live can be firmware upgraded to do 3D. Therefore earlier models/cheap models are cut out.

how did the 3D movies look?
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 110
1/15/10 at 6:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitetrash66 View Post

how did the 3D movies look?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post17920953
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 110
1/16/10 at 6:59am
Thread Starter 
ya what scion posted. Good post by that dude, the 3D effect is very cool and impressive.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 110
1/16/10 at 7:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by scionracing View Post

So what exactly is keeping current BD players from becoming 3D-compatible? With active shutter, the IR sync can be sent out from either the source device or the sink (display).

I think the protocols can be updated to 1.4 but not the video decoder (LSI) as it needs to suppport the new MVC format.

The MVC is BC with standard BD player, but only in 2D, which explains why we need a new BD player.


Looks like PS3 is the only true versatile BD player on the market. It may also be the cheapest 3D player for some time.



PS: The ASG only communicates with the display and not the source and it's only part of the equation. I mean, ASG alone can't create the 3D image.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 110
1/17/10 at 1:23am
Thread Starter 
nielo the 1.4 HDMI are actually smaller on the inputs into the device. 1.4 will only work with 1.4 as it won't even fit in 1.3 slots.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 110
1/17/10 at 2:02am
Alll HDMIs are the same (in terms of connectors and pin confit)

You must be thinking of the new Micro HDMI, which they introduced for portable devices.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 110
1/17/10 at 11:14am
Thread Starter 
Oh oops yeah I think your right, sorry. I just read it somewhere and I guess I assumed it was a new connector.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 110
1/18/10 at 5:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielo TM View Post

I think the protocols can be updated to 1.4 but not the video decoder (LSI) as it needs to suppport the new MVC format.

The MVC is BC with standard BD player, but only in 2D, which explains why we need a new BD player.

Nielo, for me and everyone else here, can you explain your above post in a more detailed manner, and spell out the acronyms?

We can move this to PM of course, but I'm not familiar with MVC and BC. Is MVC part of the new 3D Blu-ray standard?

Thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 110
1/18/10 at 5:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by scionracing View Post

Nielo, for me and everyone else here, can you explain your above post in a more detailed manner, and spell out the acronyms?

We can move this to PM of course, but I'm not familiar with MVC and BC. Is MVC part of the new 3D Blu-ray standard?

Thanks.

MVC is a derivative of the AVC codec, which allows two 1080p streams (M is for multi). BC is backwards-compatible.

As mentioned, there isn't a bandwidth difference between HDMI 1.3 and 1.4. It's the protocols that are different. From what was said at CES, by a HDMI rep, certain parts of the HDMI 1.4 spec can be upgraded in the PS3. It won't be a true HDMI 1.4 device, as certain things not related to 3D can't be implemented (such as ethernet over HDMI), but as far as 3D is concerned, it's good to go.

From what we've gathered, only HDMI 1.4 devices (including the PS3) can output TRUE dual Full 1080p streams. Cable and satellite companies have to use a different method, not only for their own bandwidth concerns, but also for their infrastructure. Without doing a major overhaul on their end and the consumer end, they have to use one of the methods that puts two streams into a single stream. RealD (which Directv will use), Sensio, and other companies have already accomplished this. While it's not up to par with 3D Blu Ray, it still looks quite good. But if you think about it, regular HD via cable or satellite doesn't compare to Blu-Ray either.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 110
1/18/10 at 5:29pm
Maybe someone can answer this. Why is it that we need a special display and glasses to watch 3D on our home TVs when at an IMAX theater, they can display it in such a way that all you have to do is wear polarized glasses to view the movie in 3D? Why can't our TVs just display the movie in that manner and eliminate the need for all of this updated hardward?
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 110
1/18/10 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by scionracing View Post

Nielo, for me and everyone else here, can you explain your above post in a more detailed manner, and spell out the acronyms?

We can move this to PM of course, but I'm not familiar with MVC and BC. Is MVC part of the new 3D Blu-ray standard?

Thanks.

taz291819 already done it for me
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 110
1/18/10 at 5:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholc2 View Post

Maybe someone can answer this. Why is it that we need a special display and glasses to watch 3D on our home TVs when at an IMAX theater, they can display it in such a way that all you have to do is wear polarized glasses to view the movie in 3D? Why can't our TVs just display the movie in that manner and eliminate the need for all of this updated hardward?

The quote below should answer a part of your question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielo TM View Post

3DTV is a term used to describe TVs with the ability to render 3D images.


The recently announced 3D displays are based on two types of perceptual formats: Active Shutter (Active) and Polarization (Passive).


Displays based on Active Shutter Technology utilize two independent frames per eye to create the illusion of 3D (e.g. 1080p x 2). The glasses automatically expose the eyes to the correct set of frames via the use of continues sync between the display and the ASG (Active Shutter Glass). Although ASG is preferred over polarization, the ASGs are rather expensive and requires continues power.


Displays based on polarization only require polarization glasses, which are extremely cheap (less than a fiver). However, the display must be coated with polarizer, which is expensive. It also does not provide full 1080p resolution per eye as both left and right images are fused onto a single image (540p x 2). In order to enable full 1080p per eye, the display must have native resolution of 3840 x 2160.


It seems only a handful of manufactures will be utilizing polarization as the majority opted for the Active Shutter (including Sony).


PS: It was announced last year that Sky favors polarization over Active Shutter. Thankfully, the Sky’s 3D format is also compatible with the Active Shutter Technology.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/newre...ply&p=11236382
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 110
1/18/10 at 5:51pm
Interesting. So polarization is possible in the theaters because the resolution is so much higher than our TVs at home. Cool. Thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 110
1/18/10 at 6:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by taz291819 View Post

MVC is a derivative of the AVC codec, which allows two 1080p streams (M is for multi). BC is backwards-compatible.

As mentioned, there isn't a bandwidth difference between HDMI 1.3 and 1.4. It's the protocols that are different. From what was said at CES, by a HDMI rep, certain parts of the HDMI 1.4 spec can be upgraded in the PS3. It won't be a true HDMI 1.4 device, as certain things not related to 3D can't be implemented (such as ethernet over HDMI), but as far as 3D is concerned, it's good to go.

From what we've gathered, only HDMI 1.4 devices (including the PS3) can output TRUE dual Full 1080p streams. Cable and satellite companies have to use a different method, not only for their own bandwidth concerns, but also for their infrastructure. Without doing a major overhaul on their end and the consumer end, they have to use one of the methods that puts two streams into a single stream. RealD (which Directv will use), Sensio, and other companies have already accomplished this. While it's not up to par with 3D Blu Ray, it still looks quite good. But if you think about it, regular HD via cable or satellite doesn't compare to Blu-Ray either.

Good info taz and Nielo.

I always figured we'd have to buy new players once I heard word of the 3D BD standard. But the PS3's compatibility gave me a glimmer of hope...

So I guess the ultimate answer is because the PS3's video decoder is software-based, whereas all of the other players out there (and also the Xbox 360) are hardware-based?
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 110
1/18/10 at 6:04pm
Yes and no. In the theaters, rotating polarized filters can be used to create S3D, which is not possible with flat panels.


Also, polarized based LCD panels are somewhat poor as those who have seen it were disappointed, which is why Sony switched to AS.

JVC and Vizo are the only manufactures that I'm aware of utilizing polarized system

http://pro.jvc.com/prof/attributes/f...l_id=MDL101867

As you can see from the link, it utilizes horizontal interlacing (1920 x 540 x 2)



PS: The LCD panel is progressive in nature and the content is displayed in interlaced form.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 110
1/18/10 at 6:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by scionracing View Post

Good info taz and Nielo.

I always figured we'd have to buy new players once I heard word of the 3D BD standard. But the PS3's compatibility gave me a glimmer of hope...

So I guess the ultimate answer is because the PS3's video decoder is software-based, whereas all of the other players out there (and also the Xbox 360) are hardware-based?

Xbox 360 is also software based, but limited by the HDMI v1.2

If the hardware based players feature a programmable LSI where future codecs and profiles can be added, then it should be on par with the PS3. sadly, I'm not aware of such players.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 110
1/18/10 at 6:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholc2 View Post

Interesting. So polarization is possible in the theaters because the resolution is so much higher than our TVs at home. Cool. Thanks.

No, that's not quite what he said. Polarization is not dependant on resolution, but for a conventional fixed pixel display, where half the pixels are polarized for one eye, and the other half polarized for the other eye, you need double the number of pixels in the display if you want to maintain the same resolution as a non-polarized display.

Projectors can use their entire x-pixel resolution for each eye by switching the polarizers alternately for each eye's image.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 110
1/18/10 at 6:25pm
Can't believe I missed that.


Thanks Roger Dressler



I should get to bed before I make thing worse LOL
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 110
1/18/10 at 6:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post

No, that's not quite what he said. Polarization is not dependant on resolution, but for a conventional fixed pixed display, where half are polarized for one eye, and the other half polarized for the other eye, you need double the number of pixels in the display if you want to maintain the same resolution as a non-polarized display.

Projectors can use their entire x-pixel resolution for each eye by switching the polarizers alternately for each eye's image.

So the projector in the theater is doing the polarization itself? That's why you only need the passive glasses?
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 110
1/18/10 at 6:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholc2 View Post

So the projector in the theater is doing the polarization itself? That's why you only need the passive glasses?

Yes. See this info on Real-D.

Quote:


The projector alternately projects right-eye frames and left-eye frames 144 times per second. [6] It circularly polarizes these frames, clockwise for the right eye and counterclockwise for the left eye. A push-pull electro-optical liquid crystal modulator called a ZScreen is placed immediately in front of the projector lens to switch polarization.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 110
1/18/10 at 7:03pm
btw, the XBox360 will be able to handle games in 3D, as the game Avatar already accomplishes.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 110
1/18/10 at 7:14pm
The X360 can render 3D better than the PS3 as it has larger frame buffer and the 10MB eDRAM.

However, it doesn't support any of the 3D protocols via HDMI. So either the vertical/horizontal resolution (or both in the case of check-board) has to be sacrificed. And the image can't be scaled either.

Anyway, both the PS3 and the X360 were designed for 2D viewing and sacrificing graphics to double the frame rate is not worth it IMO. Most likely Sony will only release/re-release games with simple graphics such as Wipeout HD.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 110
1/18/10 at 9:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielo TM View Post

The X360 can render 3D better than the PS3 as it has larger frame buffer and the 10MB eDRAM.

However, it doesn't support any of the 3D protocols via HDMI. So either the vertical/horizontal resolution (or both in the case of check-board) has to be sacrificed. And the image can't be scaled either.

Anyway, both the PS3 and the X360 were designed for 2D viewing and sacrificing graphics to double the frame rate is not worth it IMO. Most likely Sony will only release/re-release games with simple graphics such as Wipeout HD.

While it doesn't handle the protocols, it doesn't have to, the games engine will handle everything. It can output checkerboard just as easily as a PC can. As long as it can output 1080p60, it's fine.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Tech Talk

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › 3D questions/clarification