AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,073 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Something_Soft /forum/post/18313297


Or will I have to buy a new Blu-Ray player? I suspect 3D might only be compatible with HDMI 1.4, but I can't find any information about that.


Anyone?


Edit:


Found wikipedia information stating that all sub versions of HDMI 1.3 support 3D. If anyone can say differently, please do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_comparison

No sorry older player can not be upgraded for 3D the Only Player on the market right now that can do 3D compatibly is the One and Only PS3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by hdblu /forum/post/18313355


No sorry older player can not be upgraded for 3D the Only Player on the market right now that can do 3D compatibly is the One and Only PS3.

Can you please post some evidence showing why a standalone player is not even possible to be upgraded?


In my opinion its not very likely, but I haven't seen anything suggesting that it is impossible for all current players other than the PS3 to be upgraded.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,253 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by GizmoDVD /forum/post/18325000


But only 1080i IIRC.

The data on a 3D BD is frame packed 1080x24P. That is what the PS3 is going to send to the 3DTV. Full HD per eye in the frame sequential 3D format.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by rboster /forum/post/18324906


Home Theater Mag. had an article in their latest edition that confirmed that Sony PS3 was the only current player to be able to be updated.

This matches my findings as well - the PS3 is the only announced player that will do this.


@Something_Soft: While probably technically possible on a good deal of players, my guess would be you won't be seeing this. Manufacturers aren't going to just add features for free. Every year they come out with new standalones with new features, and this is how they make their money.


The PS3 on the other hand doesn't have a new version every year - when 3D comes mainstream they want people to buy a new PS3 and have 3D functionality, which means the current installed base gets it as well.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,253 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobearQSI /forum/post/18327625


This matches my findings as well - the PS3 is the only announced player that will do this.


@Something_Soft: While probably technically possible on a good deal of players, my guess would be you won't be seeing this. Manufacturers aren't going to just add features for free. Every year they come out with new standalones with new features, and this is how they make their money.


The PS3 on the other hand doesn't have a new version every year - when 3D comes mainstream they want people to buy a new PS3 and have 3D functionality, which means the current installed base gets it as well.

The PS3 is a software based BD player due to the CELL BE. All BD players are hardware based.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/18327653


The PS3 is a software based BD player due to the CELL BE. All BD players are hardware based.
based is correct. PS3 has some hardware components and does not do everything in firmware, likewise players have firmware and are not all hardware.


Based on the 3D spec, there's nothing preventing a player from being upgraded. Some decoder chips and some BR drives may not support being upgraded, but there's nothing in the spec or anywhere else I've seen that prevents ALL decoders/BR drives from being firmware upgradable to handle the new format.


In fact, I'd be willing to bet the new 3D standalone players will be using the same decoder chips and physical BR drives as today's players with upgraded firmware in the drive and firmware in the player itself to handle format negotiation with the TV.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,253 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobearQSI /forum/post/18329403

based is correct. PS3 has some hardware components and does not do everything in firmware, likewise players have firmware and are not all hardware.


Based on the 3D spec, there's nothing preventing a player from being upgraded. Some decoder chips and some BR drives may not support being upgraded, but there's nothing in the spec or anywhere else I've seen that prevents ALL decoders/BR drives from being firmware upgradable to handle the new format.


In fact, I'd be willing to bet the new 3D standalone players will be using the same decoder chips and physical BR drives as today's players with upgraded firmware in the drive and firmware in the player itself to handle format negotiation with the TV.

As far as I know:


1. The HDMI chips in BD players cannot be upgraded by firmware. Thus forth they can't deal with the HDMI InfoFrames, the framed packed timing issue and the EDID, all new to 3D BD. Why can the PS3? Because it is software based and not strictly hardware based.


2. It has been reported that 3D BD players will use a 2X speed BD drive versus the 1X speed drive in BD players. Why can the PS3? It already has a 2X speed BD drive in it.


3. As I understand it (??) Dealing with the new AVC-MVC encode that 3D BD will use along with the frame packed nature of the 3D BD frames requires a new SoC. The existing SoC's can't be upgraded. Why the PS3? Because it has the Cell BE and not an SoC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/18330386


As far as I know:


1. The HDMI chips in BD players cannot be upgraded by firmware. Thus forth they can't deal with the HDMI InfoFrames, the framed packed timing issue and the EDID, all new to 3D BD. Why can the PS3? Because it is software based and not strictly hardware based.

The PS3 uses a hardware HDMI solution. The HDMI side of things is not handled by software in the PS3
Quote:
2. It has been reported that 3D BD players will use a 2X speed BD drive versus the 1X speed drive in BD players. Why can the PS3? It already has a 2X speed BD drive in it.

The maximum bitrate for 3D has not been increased over 2D - a current drive, regardless of speed, should be in spec. They may use faster drives, but I don't think this is required.
Quote:
3. As I understand it (??) Dealing with the new AVC-MVC encode that 3D BD will use along with the frame packed nature of the 3D BD frames requires a new SoC. The existing SoC's can't be upgraded. Why the PS3? Because it has the Cell BE and not an SoC.

This may be true. I tried to find technical info on MVC but could not. If it the actual encoding is different than the current Picture-In-Picture and multi-angle encoding currently required by profile 2.0, then this could very well prevent any SoC based players from even having the possibility of being upgraded.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,253 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobearQSI /forum/post/18330747


The PS3 uses a hardware HDMI solution. The HDMI side of things is not handled by software in the PS3

It interacts with the Cell BE

Quote:
The maximum bitrate for 3D has not been increased over 2D - a current drive, regardless of speed, should be in spec. They may use faster drives, but I don't think this is required.

Reportedly it has been increased from 40Mbps to 60Mbps - thus the need for the 2X drive.

Quote:
This may be true. I tried to find technical info on MVC but could not. If it the actual encoding is different than the current Picture-In-Picture and multi-angle encoding currently required by profile 2.0, then this could very well prevent any SoC based players from even having the possibility of being upgraded.

Google: 3D Video & The MVC Standard by Nokia. Can't seem to paste PDF links
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/18330842


Reportedly it has been increased from 40Mbps to 60Mbps - thus the need for the 2X drive.

I remember a lot of people complaining about the loss in bitrate affecting picture quality - I heard the speed was not increased, and people were still upset, but only from this forum. Where did you hear about the 60Mbps?
Quote:
Google: 3D Video & The MVC Standard by Nokia.

Yes, I read that. It offers the 'what' but not the 'how,' and that's all the info I was able to find too. I couldn't find any implementation details (for example, does it exists as a standard numbered MPEG stream, and if so how are the 2 streams linked together, etc).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,253 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobearQSI /forum/post/18331114


I remember a lot of people complaining about the loss in bitrate affecting picture quality - I heard the speed was not increased, and people were still upset, but only from this forum. Where did you hear about the 60Mbps?

You will have to go The Official 3D Thread in the HDM Forum and look there. It was discussed.

Quote:
Yes, I read that. It offers the 'what' but not the 'how,' and that's all the info I was able to find too. I couldn't find any implementation details (for example, does it exists as a standard numbered MPEG stream, and if so how are the 2 streams linked together, etc).

The way MVC works is on a predictive basis - that not every scene has two totally different views. Some are redundant. That is how the storage is kept at a typical 50% over a 2D encode. The 2 streams from the stereo cameras enter the encoder, but once in, they are no longer. Or else the storage would be 100% over a 2D encode (1 view)


3D BD uses a frame packed construction. Each frame looks like this:




There aren't two seperate streams. Just a single stream at 24 FPS. It is the job of the 3DTV to unpack the L & R frames and present them seperately in the frame sequential aka page flip 3D format.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/18330842


It interacts with the Cell BE

No more so than any other CPU. There's nothing magic about the Cell or the PS3- it's just a software based blu-ray player (like a PC) instead of SoC player. Sony wasn't even able to upgrade the non-Slim PS3's to bitstream HD audio via firmware because its HDMI 1.3 chip was too early. That feature required a new HDMI chipset that's in the Slims. Note that Nvidia was also able to get its exisiting gfx cards (with HDMI 1.3 chipsets) to output the new framepacking format. The reason this works is (I'm guessing) the HDMI chips don't bother looking at the video frame format they are sending- only receiving. Since the additional bandwidth requirements for 3D don't exceed what HDMI 1.3 could already do, it's all just data down the pipe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/18330842


Reportedly it has been increased from 40Mbps to 60Mbps - thus the need for the 2X drive.

A 1X BDROM drive's data rate is 36Mbps. A consumer Blu-ray PLAYER requires a 1.5X drive because the Blu-ray spec was changed mid-way through development to allow a max data rate of 54Mbps. The max video data rate is 40Mbits/sec, and that hasn't changed for 3D. I think the confusion lies in a statement made about MVC's efficiency only causing the video size to grow by an additional 50% (instead of doubling the size as one might expect in order to contain both left and right images). People mistook that to mean they were increasing the max data rate. 40Mbps was plenty of space of space when using MPEG2 and most AVC or VC-1 don't even average half that data rate, so 40Mbps would be plenty for 3D MVC movies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/18330842


Google: 3D Video & The MVC Standard by Nokia. Can't seem to paste PDF links

Unless there is a consumer player out there that DOESN'T use a System-on-Chip, there shouldn't be any other standalone players that can be upgraded to 3D. They simply would not know how to handle an MVC datastream or even have the extra RAM to decode two sets of frames simultaneously. Were any of the very earliest Blu-ray players really disguised PCs (like Toshiba's first HD-DVD player)?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,253 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tallen94 /forum/post/18331480


No more so than any other CPU. There's nothing magic about the Cell or the PS3- it's just a software based blu-ray player (like a PC) instead of SoC player. Sony wasn't even able to upgrade the non-Slim PS3's to bitstream HD audio via firmware because its HDMI 1.3 chip was too early. That feature required a new HDMI chipset that's in the Slims. Note that Nvidia was also able to get its exisiting gfx cards (with HDMI 1.3 chipsets) to output the new framepacking format. The reason this works is (I'm guessing) the HDMI chips don't bother looking at the video frame format they are sending- only receiving. Since the additional bandwidth requirements for 3D don't exceed what HDMI 1.3 could already do, it's all just data down the pipe.




A 1X BDROM drive's data rate is 36Mbps. A consumer Blu-ray PLAYER requires a 1.5X drive because the Blu-ray spec was changed mid-way through development to allow a max data rate of 54Mbps. The max video data rate is 40Mbits/sec, and that hasn't changed for 3D. I think the confusion lies in a statement made about MVC's efficiency only causing the video size to grow by an additional 50% (instead of doubling the size as one might expect in order to contain both left and right images). People mistook that to mean they were increasing the max data rate. 40Mbps was plenty of space of space when using MPEG2 and most AVC or VC-1 don't even average half that data rate, so 40Mbps would be plenty for 3D MVC movies.



Unless there is a consumer player out there that DOESN'T use a System-on-Chip, there shouldn't be any other standalone players that can be upgraded to 3D. They simply would not know how to handle an MVC datastream or even have the extra RAM to decode two sets of frames simultaneously. Were any of the very earliest Blu-ray players really disguised PCs (like Toshiba's first HD-DVD player)?

Thank you for the corrections - I was close . . sorta
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
415 Posts
The MVC Stereo High profile used in 3D Blu-rays was designed to be backward compatible with existing dual stream decoders. It was specifically created for this purpose and differs from the more generic profiles. This is why the H.264 spec was updated late last year. The buffers still need to be compatible but it gives some hope for an upgrade path. The HDMI transmitter probably doesn't care too much since it doesn't buffer anything, and the bandwidth is well within version 1.3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,453 Posts
There is a reason new SoCs were introduced to support 3D...lots of little tweaks to the SoC design is needed. Lot more changes than just MVC decoding is needed. Also, some SoCs also couldn't handle the 2x vertical timing HDMI frame packing uses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,453 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/18331384


3D BD uses a frame packed construction. Each frame looks like this:




There aren't two seperate streams. Just a single stream at 24 FPS. It is the job of the 3DTV to unpack the L & R frames and present them seperately in the frame sequential aka page flip 3D format.

You are confusing the bitstream format and the HDMI output format (after decoding and processing). You're drawing is for the latter, and can be generated by any 3D SoC, not just a BD decoder SoC...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjack /forum/post/18332317

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/18331384


3D BD uses a frame packed construction. Each frame looks like this:


You are confusing the bitstream format and the HDMI output format (after decoding and processing). You're drawing is for the latter, and can be generated by any 3D SoC, not just a BD decoder SoC...

Correct, that image is only for transmission over HDMI - it has nothing to do with how the data is physically stored on the BR disc. Does anyone here know the details of how the 3D part is stored in MPEG-4 format on the disc? I assume it is just an additional numbered stream, but AFAIK there's nothing in the MPEG-4 spec that allows you to say 'stream y is a difference stream from x' etc.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top