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 3

post #61 of 79
4/25/10 at 10:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post

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.

The mandatory full resolution 3D format in the HDMI 1.4a 3D specs is Frame Packing. The issue with using Frame Packing for 1080i60 though is that current cable/satellite set top boxes wouldn't be capable of it while they are capable of the side by side 3D format.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #62 of 79
4/26/10 at 6:36am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post

...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.

Hear, hear. That's why I struggled writing 720p half-resolution 3D "HD" initially (last sentence, OP).

Curious what's the reason for 810X1080 versus the usual stated 960X1080 for S/S (side-by-side).

Seems, though, ESPN's S/S 720p(?) 3D via DBS will be delivered to MPEG-4 STBs. So still puzzled, with MPEG-4's boosted capacity, why a higher-resolution 3D format wouldn't be used, if feasible. (As posted earlier, it's not clear yet how much effective horizontal resolution--resolvable detail versus format resolution--is diminished after decoding/interpolation/scaling from S/S to frame sequential.) -- John
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 79
4/26/10 at 7:34am
AFAIK none of the STBs that can receive MPEG4 HD content can then output it with their HDMI 1.3 output interfaces in other then 1080i/60 or 720p/60 which restricts them currently to SBS formats until a new generation of STBs preferably with HDMI 1.4 output chips are introduced.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 79
4/26/10 at 7:44am
There is another 3D format they can use - Top/Bottom aka over/under which preserves the hortizontial res. but cuts the vertical res by half.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 79
4/26/10 at 8:00am
As anyone knows who has compared HD on cable or satellite with HD over-the-air or HD blu-ray, the picture on cable or satellite has less resolution, poorer color, and various artifacts. It's because cable and satellite operators reduce mpeg encoding bit rates so that they can carry more channels. So there is a way available to improve resolution that is entirely compatible with current set top boxes and other equipment: just increase bit rates (at the cost of carrying fewer channels). Introducing full resolution 3D without increasing bit rates would be pointless anyway (if even possible).
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 79
4/26/10 at 8:38am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

As anyone knows who has compared HD on cable or satellite with HD over-the-air or HD blu-ray, the picture on cable or satellite has less resolution, poorer color, and various artifacts. It's because cable and satellite operators reduce mpeg encoding bit rates so that they can carry more channels.

That hasn't been the case here with NYC's TWC for ~10 years of HD viewing. While I often complain about potential rate shaping with bit rate reductions, blocking artifacts are very rare here and HD resolution is often impressive, depending on the source. By contrast, often read about OTA viewers, plagued by multicasting, undergoing bad blocking artifacts and poor overall PQ.

Quote:
So there is a way available to improve resolution that is entirely compatible with current set top boxes and other equipment: just increase bit rates (at the cost of carrying fewer channels). Introducing full resolution 3D without increasing bit rates would be pointless anyway (if even possible).

Right on, Greg. Believe Ken H suggested using more QAM space (cable's digital delivery format) earlier above to boost overall bit rates.

In suggesting the need for MPEG-4-based 3D full-rez delivery, I was also thinking of 1080p60 possibilities. As mentioned earlier, chip-maker Ambarella writes that only requires ~20% more bandwidth using MPEG-4. That, too, is possible with current MPEG-2-based paths, but seems less feasible because it would eat up (without MPEG-4) so much bandwidth employed for the junk-channel avalanche. -- John
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 79
4/26/10 at 8:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

AFAIK none of the STBs that can receive MPEG4 HD content can then output it with their HDMI 1.3 output interfaces in other then 1080i/60 or 720p/60 which restricts them currently to SBS formats until a new generation of STBs preferably with HDMI 1.4 output chips are introduced.

There are plenty of HDMI 1.3 devices that will support 1080p24 per eye (like the PS3 and the Sony N470) so it isn't the port that is holding back full 3D HD from broadcasters.

It is the lack of MVC support. Without it, broadcasters would have to double the aloted bandwidth for a 3D broadcast. Once they figure out how to add MVC support to existing set-top boxes then they can do 1080p60 per eye, but of course the new 3D TVs can't accept this input, so we'd have to watch it at 1080p30 per eye.

Bob Wilson of Motorola did tell me in an interview (that we published as a podcast) that when set-tops can handle MVC, a 1080p60 per eye signal will take up about the same bandwidth as 1080i60 via MPEG2. In addition the set-top could display that signal as 1080i60 (or 60p) in 2D for older TVs, so you could save bandwidth by not requiring a simulcast of both the HD and 3D, but that is years off at this point.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 79
4/26/10 at 8:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

There is another 3D format they can use - Top/Bottom aka over/under which preserves the hortizontial res. but cuts the vertical res by half.

Do you know of anyone who has actually chosen top/bottom? ESPN has yet to announce what it would use, but when I toured the ESPN innovation lab, they too seemed to be leaning towards side by side.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 79
4/26/10 at 9:22am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw View Post

It is the lack of MVC support.

Multi-Variable Concurrency?? We're all not attuned to 3D tech. Possible to briefly summarize MVC pros versus MPEG-4 use? -- John
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 79
4/26/10 at 9:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw View Post

Do you know of anyone who has actually chosen top/bottom? ESPN has yet to announce what it would use, but when I toured the ESPN innovation lab, they too seemed to be leaning towards side by side.

It has not been used yet. It is part of the 1.4a spes. AFAIK, only 1080i SbS has been used for 3D broadcasts here in the USA - the Cablevision hockey game and The Masters in 3D on CBL.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 79
4/26/10 at 10:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

AFAIK none of the STBs that can receive MPEG4 HD content can then output it with their HDMI 1.3 output interfaces in other then 1080i/60 or 720p/60 ...

My DirecTV HR20 handles mpeg4 and can output 1080p/24. (I'm not saying this affects your conclusion.)
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 79
4/26/10 at 10:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hphase View Post


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

Although the specifics of ESPN's 3D channel are not public knowledge as yet, the recent 3D broadcast of The Masters may hold clues.

The broadcast was a combined effort from ESPN, Sony, Comcast, and IBM. The format used for cable (and in Canada cable & DBS) was 1080i SbS.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 79
4/26/10 at 10:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw View Post

Do you know of anyone who has actually chosen top/bottom?

Nope.

Quote:


ESPN has yet to announce what it would use, but when I toured the ESPN innovation lab, they too seemed to be leaning towards side by side.

See my comment directly above.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 79
4/26/10 at 12:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason View Post

Curious what's the reason for 810X1080 versus the usual stated 960X1080 for S/S (side-by-side).

Sorry, bad math and not enough fingers to count on. 960 it is.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 79
4/26/10 at 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason View Post

Multi-Variable Concurrency?? We're all not attuned to 3D tech. Possible to briefly summarize MVC pros versus MPEG-4 use?

The Multiview Video Coding is an extension of H.264, basically it stores the left frame and only the difference of the right frame. This is what 3D Blu-ray uses and results in a ~50% overhead over 2D for 3D. According to a new Motorola page, it is also what will be used for full HD broadcast 3D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiview_Video_Coding

http://business.motorola.com/3dtv/index.html
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 79
4/26/10 at 4:01pm
Ben,
Good find on the up and coming new 3D STBs from Motorola. They are certainly on the right track. Hopefully these new boxes will become the standard for all PVR STBs in once they get production ramped up and can make them for the same price as the current units.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 79
4/27/10 at 3:12am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw View Post

The Multiview Video Coding is an extension of H.264, basically it stores the left frame and only the difference of the right frame. This is what 3D Blu-ray uses and results in a ~50% overhead over 2D for 3D. According to a new Motorola page, it is also what will be used for full HD broadcast 3D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiview_Video_Coding

http://business.motorola.com/3dtv/index.html

Yes, thanks for the lookup, coupled with Motorola's comments earlier , and also corresponds to the older Ambarella paper (sans MVC description) about potential MPEG-4/1080p60 broadcasting I linked earlier above. Interesting to learn MVC is part of MPEG-4 to store/deliver 3D more efficiently. -- John
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 79
4/27/10 at 7:49am
Just saw this and it looks like there is a third option called MPEG-4 Multi-View Plus Depth or 2D + Z stream. According to Infonetics Research it only requires 10 to 20 percent more throughput than 2D, but then again the company says MVC requires 80 percent more when the BDA claims MVC only requires 50 percent more -- who knows who is right.


http://ezine.motorola.com/ezine/serv...to+Focus&a=497
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 79
4/27/10 at 9:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw View Post

Just saw this and it looks like there is a third option called MPEG-4 Multi-View Plus Depth or 2D + Z stream. According to Infonetics Research it only requires 10 to 20 percent more throughput than 2D, but then again the company says MVC requires 80 percent more when the BDA claims MVC only requires 50 percent more -- who knows who is right.


http://ezine.motorola.com/ezine/serv...to+Focus&a=497

I would not consider 2D Plus Depth a full resolution 3D format since it only records a depth map of the 3D video. The parts of the 3D video you would only see with the left or right eye aren't recorded. It takes less data to do 2D Plus Depth but it provides less as well.
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 › Possible Full-Resolution 3D On Cable/DBS?