AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › Possible Full-Resolution 3D On Cable/DBS?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Possible Full-Resolution 3D On Cable/DBS? - Page 2

post #31 of 79
No, the refresh rate would still be 60fps as it is 1080i broadcast, with 1920x1080 every 30th of a second just like 1080i. The way SbS is decoded, it is 60fps per eye. I'm curious if it has been tried or considered for a 3D broadcast standard. could I patent it?
post #32 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

The 3D they broadcast is standard 720p or 1080i btoadcast, using my suggestion for 1080i, we could have full rez broadcast 3D.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

Yes, but to send a 1920x1080 image to the eyes every 30th of a second could be done as I stated.

The side by side 3D format is a half resolution 3D format. With 1080i60 using the side by side 3D format you get either 1080x960 per eye at 30 fps or 540x960 per eye at 60 fps.
post #33 of 79
An easy way for cable or DBS to do 3D equal to BD is to use two channels, one for left eye & one for right. The end user would need two STBs, and one of these, or something like it: http://www.reald.com/Content/POD-Dual-Input.aspx
post #34 of 79
Bill you keep confusing the upscaling of the resultion of content received with the frame rate it is being displayed at. If I have a 1 megapixel digtal camera no matter how hard I try I can not print 8x10 prints that have decent PQ.
post #35 of 79
Don't forget a 3D TV displays a picture every 1/120 of a second. It can display 4 different quarters of a picture, at full screen with the missing pixels interpolated just like it does with a DVD, every 1/30 of a second. If you show half the resolution in one SBS, two different one quarter of the rez in each side and the other half of the resolution in the second SbS the same way, those quarters combine into a full 1920x1080 every 30th of a second. One half the rez to one eye and the other half to the other eye every 30th of a second. I guess I need to draw up a diagram.
post #36 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

There is also no reason why 1920x1080i can't be sent out alternating frame. Even easier if this is part of the standard.

It's not.

http://www.hdmi.org/download/2010_03...I_Spec1.4a.pdf
post #37 of 79
My TV has an alternating frame setting that says it's for PC. The PC can be hooked up by HDMI. However I don't know if it can accept 1080i at this setting. I assume not.
post #38 of 79
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

AFAIK all of the Live 3D content being broadcast is being "filmed" using dual Sony 1080p/60 cameras which can provide output for each eye in 1080p/60, 1080i/60, or 720p/60 resolution. I do not know if they can output more then one of these resolutions concurrently but I suspect that they can since I would assume that the "filmers" would want to save a digital copy of the 1080p/60 content for later use even though they may be are currently scaling it to 1080i/60 or 720p/60 for broacasting.

A year or so back one of the tech supervisors for mobile equipment trucks outlined (HD programming section) how joint 720p/1080i sports events, like ESPN's 720p for weekday golf coverage plus a 1080i network on weekends, are handled: While 1080/60p cameras can output that format, 720p, or 1080i, he mentioned the on-site cameras typically (to avoid mixups) feed 1080i to trucks, then it's either converted to 720p or used as is. The short Ambarella paper I linked earlier discusses 1080p60, with MPEG-4, for broadcasting. And of course 1080 at 60 full frames/sec is much more bandwidth demanding than 1080@24 fps for movies.

Doubt live 3D events like the recent Masters are using or recording 1080p60 camera outputs instead of 1080i30 (1080/60i). 1080p60@3 Gbps, with ~148-MHz sampling--double standard-HD's 1.5 Gbps with ~74-MHz sampling--requires dual-link or equivalent camera outputs. Taping 1080p60 typically involves HDCAM-SR recorders running at double speed (~800 Mbps). It's being used for some movie and archived productions; maybe they'll use and store it for the new 3D channels; recall a news item about ESPN upgrading studios for 1080p60 (storage).

Mentioned RED digital-cinema hardware earlier here since, even though it's not designed for live programming, its output might be modified for broadcasting, boosting effective 1080i resolution and image sharpness after its ~4k downconversion. 3D RED rigs benefit from the camera's compact size, and the digital outputs have a standard bandwidth-saving compressed format; recent sensor/firmware enhancements have boosted dynamic range.
Quote:


I am not sure what you mean by a 3D computer.

Any PC rigged for 3D-signal output. A different thread topic if detailed, which I summarized for my current 2D display, supposedly capable of taking a 120-Hz HD input. Yup, we likely still differ on this. -- John
post #39 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

Yes and to me, it is better than the broadcast 3D I've seen. If that is going to be the case, who needs the broadcast 3D? Only those whose tVs don't do conversion.

If The Masters and the MSG Hockey look like a HDTVs 2D to 3D conversion, then broadcast 3D has no chance of success.

I've seen lots of 3D demos at shows, but neither of the two broadcasts yet, but I do know that I'm NOT a fan of any of the 2D to 3D conversion I've seen. I mean it looks like a pop-up book, there really isn't any depth.

I'm very excited to watch my favorite content in 3D because it makes it seem more realistic and immersive, not because I want things popping out of the TV.
post #40 of 79
Bill.
A 3D TV never shows the left eye and right eye SBS content in SBS format. It upscales each eyes side image separatly to full resolution using interpolation to insert the missing pixels just as you described. Each upscaled eyes full frame content is then displayed sequentialy and the active shutter glasess determine which eye is able to see the screen.

As John points out in the following post a 3D TV user cand view the SbS content in the format it is received if desired.
post #41 of 79
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

Bill.
A 3D TV never shows the left eye and right eye SBS content in SBS format. It upscales each eyes side image separatly to full resolution using interpolation to insert the missing pixels just as you described. Each upscaled eyes full frame content is then displayed sequentialy and the active shutter glasess determine which eye is able to see the screen.

My NYC TWC HD Showcase VOD channel has numerous side-by-side 3D segments from the recent Masters golf match. Folks with 3D setups, who also DVRed Masters 2D clips could easily A-B compare similar golf holes (3D, 2D) to see whether 3D-decoding/interpolation actually matches, or comes close to, 2D 1080i origination. Different hardware used for 2D and 3D capture/delivery from Augusta, of course.

So, not that sure interpolated 'half-resolution' 3D can really be called "full resolution." It may become a 1920X1080 "full" format per eye, but the resolvable detail in 3D versus the all-2D path may differ. And all sorts of variables may differ between the 2D 1080i delivery chain and the 3D that influences final on-screen effective resolution. Needs more testing, IMO, both anecdotal while scrutinizing and comparing motion-image details, perhaps with test patterns, too. Again, suspect 3D's gee-whiz factor could override some PQ degradation for some observers. --John
post #42 of 79
I think you nailed it at the end there John. The improvement of 3D probably out weights the reduction in detail of frame compatible 3D.
post #43 of 79
John, You are correct if the user of a 3D TV wants to view the SbS content as received they certainly can.
post #44 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw View Post

I think you nailed it at the end there John. The improvement of 3D probably out weights the reduction in detail of frame compatible 3D.

The extra resolution of conversion by my set is more desirable than the broadcast 3D I have seen. John, I and everyone would have to see my idea in action to see if it is better. Alas it isn't part of the standard and probably won't happen anytime soon.
post #45 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw View Post

If The Masters and the MSG Hockey look like a HDTVs 2D to 3D conversion, then broadcast 3D has no chance of success.

I've seen lots of 3D demos at shows, but neither of the two broadcasts yet, but I do know that I'm NOT a fan of any of the 2D to 3D conversion I've seen. I mean it looks like a pop-up book, there really isn't any depth.

I'm very excited to watch my favorite content in 3D because it makes it seem more realistic and immersive, not because I want things popping out of the TV.

You need to get a Samsung 3D tv. You can watch everything in 3D and as you stated "it makes it seem more realistic and immersive, not because I want things popping out of the TV." That describes the conversion and it has full resolution.
post #46 of 79
Bill

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one -- and yes I've seen the Samsung 2D to 3D conversion.
post #47 of 79
Yes, it does seem to be an individually varying opinion on the conversion, however most of the reviews claim it is very good. I'm enjoying the heck out of it. Sorry it doesn't do it for you. My wife is in your camp, she'd much rather watch our old TV (which we do most of the time) but that would include broadcast 3D also. She does like "M vs A" 3D. Surprised I come up to her standards.
post #48 of 79
Becareful here. Don't confuse interlaced fields with progressive frames. These intelaced vs. progressive arguments have been done to death over the past 10+years.

Side-by-side makes the limitations in the 720p format's spatial resolution worse.

S/S 1080 is 960x1080
S/S 720 is 540x720

I would say that you need full-res 3D to make 720p 3D viable. I don't think ESPN cares much, though.
post #49 of 79
Yes, that's why it should be alternate frame.
post #50 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

Yes, that's why it should be alternate frame.

I don't see though how that would be better than how the side by side 3D format is described in the HDMI 1.4a 3D specs. No matter how you cut up and scale the picture you are still working with the same number of pixels.
post #51 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

Be careful here. Don't confuse interlaced fields with progressive frames. These intelaced vs. progressive arguments have been done to death over the past 10+years.

Side-by-side makes the limitations in the 720p format's spatial resolution worse.

S/S 1080 is 810x1080
S/S 720 is 540x720

I would say that you need full-res 3D to make 720p 3D viable. I don't think ESPN cares much, though.

SBS 3D 1080i/60 is 15 fps of 1080p since 2D 1080i is 30 fps of 1080p content
and 3D SBS 720p/60 is 30fps of 720p.
ESPN-HD picked 720p/60 as it's HD format many years ago in order to provide the higher frame rate requied for fast motion sports.
post #52 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

Yes, it does seem to be an individually varying opinion on the conversion, however most of the reviews claim it is very good. I'm enjoying the heck out of it. Sorry it doesn't do it for you. My wife is in your camp, she'd much rather watch our old TV (which we do most of the time) but that would include broadcast 3D also. She does like "M vs A" 3D. Surprised I come up to her standards.

Yes it does. I guess I just can't get passed the conversion in my head. In fact I don't like to upconvert DVDs either. Back when I had my CRT RPTV I'd still watch then at 480p. Now I just watch Blu-ray.

I'm also not trying to say people won't appreciate the feature.
post #53 of 79
Ben,
That makes total sense even with a CRT TV that could scan ast either 480i or at 1080i it made absolutly no sense to have a 480i DVD scan at 1080i since it would just produce grainy displays.
However, with fixed pixel digital technology TVs you will get the best PQ by sending video content that is "filmed' in the native resolution of the the digital TV. So with a 1080p digital TV sending 1080p contenty from a BR disk would give the best PQ.
post #54 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

SBS 3D 1080i/60 is 15 fps of 1080p since 2D 1080i is 30 fps of 1080p content
and 3D SBS 720p/60 is 30fps of 720p.
ESPN-HD picked 720p/60 as it's HD format many years ago in order to provide the higher frame rate requied for fast motion sports.

Incorrect, but misleading. You can't take shortcuts in the description. You have to specify frame rate, scanning style, and resolution to completely describe a format.

By "3D 1080i/60" do you mean the cameras/acquisition? 1080i consists of frames that are broken into fields for transmission. Each field can be captured independently, so "2D 1080i" may not be 30 frames per second. It could be 60 fields per second.

SBS refers to a distribution format. This means that the display format does not need to be the same, or divided by two as in your explanation.

As far as sports, 60 frames per second is still too slow for sports. A blurry 1280x720 frame is no better than a blurry 1920x540 field.
post #55 of 79
2D 1080i/60 is accordance with a ATSC digital standards 60 fields per second which corresponds to 30 frames per second. See the following linke for that ATSC digital standards:

http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html
post #56 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

2D 1080i/60 is accordance with a ATSC digital standards 60 fields per second which corresponds to 30 frames per second. See the following linke for that ATSC digital standards:

http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html

What consumer HD application uses 30 FPS?

I know 24 FPS and 60 FPS and 60 Fields/sec are widely used.
post #57 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

I don't see though how that would be better than how the side by side 3D format is described in the HDMI 1.4a 3D specs. No matter how you cut up and scale the picture you are still working with the same number of pixels.

Huh? With SbS you are sending half rez to each eye. With alternate, you are sending full rez to each eye. Seems to me computers have been doing this for awhile. Your not getting 120fps like SbS of course but do you really need it. We've been watching 60fps for a long time. Me, I'll take full rez at 60fps. Seems to me, if you want to sell new sets, you make a new standard, that's the bottom line. Is it better, in the case of broadcast 3D TV, not AFAIC. Done on purpose? After all, this 3D thing was totally done by business.
post #58 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

What consumer HD application uses 30 FPS?

I know 24 FPS and 60 FPS and 60 Fields/sec are widely used.

Lee, you know what he is talking about with 1080i.
post #59 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

Lee, you know what he is talking about with 1080i.

Oh sure - I have seen plenty of people say that 60 fields/sec = 30 FPS.

But I guarantee you that if you set up two professional HD cameras with side by side 1080P HDTVs, one camera shooting at 1080i while the other shooting at 1080x30P - you are not going to see identical images.
post #60 of 79
Not identical images, a given but it will look better than 720p. Uh oh, I'd better add SbS 3D to that 720p.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 3D Tech Talk
AVS › AVS Forum › 3D Central › 3D Tech Talk › Possible Full-Resolution 3D On Cable/DBS?