[curtishd]

Ok so most of use know Directv will have several 3D channels in June but what technology will they be and what HDTVs will and won't work? From what o have read the current STB will get a new firmware up date and the stb will be ready with the hdmi 1.3 spec. so will you need a 1.4 hdmi HDTV or what?

 

[taz291819]

They'll be using RealD's Side-by-Side method. Other than that, everything else is just speculation.

 

[Lee Stewart]



Quote:
Originally Posted by taz291819 /forum/post/18251777


They'll be using RealD's Side-by-Side method. Other than that, everything else is just speculation.

It was ESPN and Cable Labs who pushed HDMI.org to add the 720 Over/Under (AKA Top/Bottom) 3D format

 

[taz291819]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/18251800


It was ESPN and Cable Labs who pushed HDMI.org to add the 720 Over/Under (AKA Top/Bottom) 3D format

Yeppers. That's the beauty of these different methods, they can easily be converted to other display methods. I do know for a fact that 3D content can be scaled, as I have quite a few 3D 720p samples, and they look fine scaled to 1080p. I also have samples using the interlaced method (Sensio), and those are converted and scaled fine to 1080p.


There hasn't been a method yet that Stereoscopic Player hasn't been able to convert. Nice piece of software indeed.

 

[scarabaeus]



Quote:
Originally Posted by taz291819 /forum/post/18251777


They'll be using RealD's Side-by-Side method. Other than that, everything else is just speculation.

DirecTV had stated during the CES, they would do 1080p24 in side-by-side for movies. The surprise was that their boxes can handle 1080p24, since all existing HD channels were 1080i60 or 720p60.


HDMI has now caved to the broadcasters and added a few frame-compatible "half"-resolution formats to the ones that have to be supported by 3D displays. For the US, these are 1080i60 side-by-side and 720p60/1080p24 top-bottom. This is in addition to the "full"-resolution 720p60/1080p24 frame-packing format, that was mandatory in HDMI 1.4 already, but those would probably not be supported by existing set top boxes with just a firmware upgrade.


Since the set-top-boxes will most likely not be able to convert from one 3D format to another, these three would be the most likely to be used by broadcasters. ESPN had always said they would do 720p60 side-by-side.


By the way, when you convert from a side-by-side format to a top-bottom format, you end up with only a quarter of the original resolution, since each of the two different formats has only half the original resolution, but reduced on opposite dimensions.

 

[GregLee]



Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus /forum/post/18255769


DirecTV had stated during the CES, they would do 1080p24 in side-by-side for movies. The surprise was that their boxes can handle 1080p24, since all existing HD channels were 1080i60 or 720p60.

"Movies" isn't necessarily the same as "channels", since DirecTV has been able to get 2D 1080p24 VOD from their boxes for some time. Then we have to be careful about whether the 3D will be 1080p24 before or after the left and right frames have been unpacked. I'd bet on before.

 

[scarabaeus]



Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee /forum/post/18255849


"Movies" isn't necessarily the same as "channels", since DirecTV has been able to get 2D 1080p24 VOD from their boxes for some time. Then we have to be careful about whether the 3D will be 1080p24 before or after the left and right frames have been unpacked. I'd bet on before.

Yes, but they only specified this for movies, and did not comment on other content on different channels. For other content, that is natively 60 Hz, 1080i60 or 720p60 would have to be used.


With HDMI 1.4a, and assuming the set top box can not convert the transmitted frame format into a different 3D output format, this narrows the cable or sat transmission formats to:

- 1080p24 Top-and-Bottom (presumably for movies)

- 1080i60 Side-by-Side (presumably for TV shows)

- 720p60 Top-and-Bottom (presumably for sports)


For 3D Blu-ray players, the preferred output formats would still be:

- 1080p24 Frame Packing (movies)

- 720p60 Frame Packing (other content)

Because these are the only ones that allow for full resolution per eye.


For a set-top-box, the conversion to Frame Packing would be possible, but not useful, since the content is already delivered with half the nominal resolution per eye.

 

[curtishd]

According to hdbeat.com CBS will be offers the NCAA mens basketball Finsl Four in 3D at theaters and even just maybe via cable or satellite.

 

[taz291819]



Quote:
Originally Posted by curtishd /forum/post/18282270


According to hdbeat.com CBS will be offers the NCAA mens basketball Finsl Four in 3D at theaters and even just maybe via cable or satellite.

This year, it'll just be theaters, since there won't be any 3D channels on cable/sat yet. Though, they may use some footage for demos.

 

[bdraw]

DirecTV has only announced compatibility with the new Panasonic 3DTVs, and they are evidently doing it by going outside the spec. That being said, I fully expect all the new 3DTVs to work, but if you want to play it safe, but the Panasonic (not to mention Panasonic's 3D demos at CES looked the best, so that is probably the way to go anyways).

 

[bdraw]



Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus /forum/post/18255769


ESPN had always said they would do 720p60 side-by-side.

I agree that this is the most likely format ESPN will choose, but so far ESPN has refused to share its preferred format. Do you have a link or something where ESPN said what 3D format it would use?

 

[scarabaeus]



Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw /forum/post/18304376


I agree that this is the most likely format ESPN will choose, but so far ESPN has refused to share its preferred format. Do you have a link or something where ESPN said what 3D format it would use?

I thought I had read that in the Engadget coverage of the CES, but I just went through those posts again and could not find it. I think it was assumed by a commenter, since all their channels are 720p, and this format would make the most sense for fast moving sports.

 

[scarabaeus]



Quote:
Originally Posted by taz291819 /forum/post/18251963


Yeppers. That's the beauty of these different methods, they can easily be converted to other display methods. I do know for a fact that 3D content can be scaled, as I have quite a few 3D 720p samples, and they look fine scaled to 1080p. I also have samples using the interlaced method (Sensio), and those are converted and scaled fine to 1080p.


There hasn't been a method yet that Stereoscopic Player hasn't been able to convert. Nice piece of software indeed.

Yes, but your Stereoscopic Player is not just a scaler, it is also a 3D reformatter.


Generally, 3D formats where the left and right images are interleaved at a frame level, such as side-by-side, top-bottom and frame sequential, can survive scaling operations and compression.


Pixel-level interleaved formats, such as line interleaved, column interleaved, and checkerboard, can not be scaled and won't survive a 4:4:4 to 4:2:0 transformation. They require to split the 3D signal into two separate 2D images, scale them independently, and then re-assemble them again into a 3D format.


Such a format conversion will result in the artifacts of both 3D formats being present in the output signal. If you convert from a side-by-side signal (half horizontal res) to a top-bottom or line interleaved (half vertical), then you will end up with a quarter of your original resolution, half horizontal and half vertical.


Conversion to and from frame packing or frame sequential (full) won't introduce any additional artifacts, since those formats don't degrade the resolution or frame rate.


This also goes for your 720p SBS to 1080p SBS conversion, which is a simple scaling operation without reformatting. Since both are horizontally challenged, you won't have any additional degradations.

 

[Lee Stewart]



Quote:
Originally Posted by bdraw /forum/post/18304376


I agree that this is the most likely format ESPN will choose, but so far ESPN has refused to share its preferred format. Do you have a link or something where ESPN said what 3D format it would use?

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...s_3D_Plans.php

 

[davehancock]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/18304911

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...s_3D_Plans.php

There is a contridiction in one of the statements there:

Quote:
ESPN will be compressing the left-eye and right-eye images in the horizontal plane and "putting one on top of the other," said Bailey, which doesn't require any additional capacity.

"Compressing in the horizontal plane", to me, says side by side, not "one on top of the other".


Also if they used 720p over/under then we would end up with 360p! (360x1280) That seems pretty extreme!

 

[scarabaeus]



Quote:
Originally Posted by davehancock /forum/post/18305203


There is a contridiction in one of the statements there:



"Compressing in the horizontal plane", to me, says side by side, not "one on top of the other".


Also if they used 720p over/under then we would end up with 360p! (360x1280) That seems pretty extreme!

I guess you could skew that meaning of "horizontal plane" to mean horizontally squeezed outwards...


Yes, 720p top-and-bottom would mean 1280x360p per eye, yet that is exactly the format they put into HDMI 1.4a. The spec would allow 720p side-by-side(half), with 640x720p per eye, but that is not in the list of mandatory formats.

 

[Lee Stewart]



Quote:
“It's some of the preprocessing [capabilities] they don't have,” Pontual says. “Part of that is done at the program producer, and part of it is done at DirecTV.”


Pontual says DirecTV will likely use a slightly higher bitrate for 3D than it currently uses for its normal MPEG-4 HD streams, but he wouldn't give a specific number. He did dismiss the notion that fitting 3D in the same bitrate as 2D HD, by using the side-by-side interleaved format, means cutting the horizontal resolution in half.


“That's absolutely not true,” he says. “It would only be half if you were transmitting identical left- and right-eye images. 3D already gives me a gain, as every odd pixel to one eye is representing an even pixel to the other one. If you're smart in how you're picking pixels, you can get a very high horizontal resolution.”

http://hardware.broadcastnewsroom.co....jsp?id=992058

 

[walford]

Note the 2008 article quoting Pontual does not say that you get full 1920 horizontal pixel resolution. It inmplied to me that you only get 960 horizontal resolution since he states "as every odd pixel to one eye is representing an even pixel to the other" but of course my interpretation of his quote may not be correct but if not what does it mean?

 

[davehancock]



Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus /forum/post/18306280

Quote:
Originally Posted by davehancock

There is a contridiction in one of the statements there:



"Compressing in the horizontal plane", to me, says side by side, not "one on top of the other".


Also if they used 720p over/under then we would end up with 360p! (360x1280) That seems pretty extreme!

I guess you could skew that meaning of "horizontal plane" to mean horizontally squeezed outwards...

That's pretty much the standard definition of side by side. From the HDMI 1.4a spec (describing side by side):

Quote:
Side-by-Side (Half) is one of the HDMI 3D video format structures indicated by the 3D_Structure

field and is composed of two stereoscopic pictures: Left and Right which are sub-sampled to half

resolution on the horizontal axis, and defined as shown in Figure 8-5.

So the statement IS a contradicition!

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabaeus /forum/post/18306280


Yes, 720p top-and-bottom would mean 1280x360p per eye, yet that is exactly the format they put into HDMI 1.4a. The spec would allow 720p side-by-side(half), with 640x720p per eye, but that is not in the list of mandatory formats.

But 1080i side by side is!

 

[Lee Stewart]



Quote:
Originally Posted by walford /forum/post/18306691


Note the 2008 article quoting Pontual does not say that you get full 1920 horizontal pixel resolution. It inmplied to me that you only get 960 horizontal resolution since he states "as every odd pixel to one eye is representing an even pixel to the other" but of course my interpretation of his quote may not be correct but if not what does it mean?

Could he be referring to the 2D+Delta encoding method?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2D_plus_Delta

http://wapedia.mobi/en/2D%2BDelta