Blu-ray Disc Association Announces Final 3D Specification

[Shane]

The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) today announced the finalization and release of the “Blu-ray 3DTM” specification. The specification, which represents the work of the leading Hollywood studios and consumer electronic and computer manufacturers, will enable the home entertainment industry to bring the 3D experience into consumers’ living rooms on Blu-ray Disc, the most capable high definition home entertainment platform.

The “Blu-ray 3D” specification fully leverages...

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/news/2009/12/bluray_disc_association_announces_final_3d_specification.php]Read Bulletin[/url]

[videograbber]

Good to see that they're cooperating with SMPTE, which has a project underway (reported here recently) to evaluate and determine the best choices in standards development for 3D. Sony always was a team player.

Whoops, nope!! Scratch both those comments. They decided to go their own way (imagine that), and select the most inefficient option for encoding, with a 50% overhead. I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with royalties.

- Tim

[hharris4earthlink]

Okay, great, you've got the spelling down tight, but here's a minor detail: what the heck is it?

I've always been a high-tech weenie, a devotee of the latest and best in TV technologies, but in reading this announcement I still don't understand what it means to me. I've always dreamed that one day I'd have a 3-D TV. It wasn't too long ago that I rented a 3-D movie and found it was same horrible, unwatchable, colored-lens experience I had in 50's movie theaters.

So it was with a mixture of excitement and dread that I read this latest announcement. There were a lot of nice words but it didn't tell me what I wanted to know:

(1) I assume you have to wear glasses of some sort, so what is the technology behind them? Is a synchronization of right and left with the TV? Or is it based on polarized light or something else?

(2) Do I have to buy a new TV set? I haven't owned a big-screen hi-def TV for that long. Are you telling me it's now obsolete?

[hharris4earthlink]

After reading many articles on this subject, I've tentatively come to a conclusion as to what they are talking about, although I couldn't find anything explicit, which I find a little weird. Bear in mine I've found no site the explains in explicit enough detail what this is, but here's my best reading- between-the-lines guess.

The technology is time sequenced 3-D, which means the left and right image is sequentially sent to your TV set. You must wear glasses that block your left eye when the TV is showing the right etc., synchronized by a signal that tells your headset when to switch. Because this is done very quickly, you get the sensation of seeing in 3D.

The PS3 already has this capability and requires you to purchase googles that plug into the PS3. The current PS3 is capable of creating and sequencing the highest resolution picture for both eyes.

Here's what I don't know because different sites claim different things. Do you need to buy a special TV that can handle the rapid picture sequencing? I would guess no, and some sites seem to say this, but not all of them. Perhaps someone else can answer this question.

[Richard]

I am working on an article for this topic and you pretty much have the basics.

I did read the suggestion that the 3D push for PS3 gaming in 2011 might be compatible with any display but can't find anything of substance. While the PS3 might be 3D compatible it was not clear if current PS3 product in the field can be upgraded via software.

All my research points to replacing your display but there is a technical argument in my mind, inspired by your post (thanks), that this could be achieved with any display and that would change the 3D market dramatically. But then how would manufacturers be able to start another new 5-10 year highly profitable technology market?

[hharris4earthlink]

Of course, current TV's must display sequences of pictures fast enough to produce a seamless illusion of motion. The question then would be can the current standard provide the same illusion in one eye when the picture is being upgraded at twice the time interval? This question is complicated by the fact that the other eye is doing the same thing out of sync. This is not just a physics question since it involves understanding how the brain integrates the left and right eyes.

As you indicate, I'm a little bit suspicious of contradictory claims of whether one has to replace one's TV. The fact that there is no absolute claim one way or the other makes me suspect that the industry might be trying to have their cake and eat it too.

[Richard]

From what I can figure out the 120hz is based purely on providing two images, 720p or 1080p, at 60 frames. To do that you have to add another 60 frames to create a left/right eye image, hence 120hz.

Film is 24 and most content is 24 or 30 frame. A 1080p 60 frame 3D spec would be sought by PC gamers and while it might be nice for future home video capability it doesn't have much benefit now.

Sports captured and delivered at 720p is the only exception and 120hz is the only way. Based on that it would appear 3D is stuck with 120hz since sports is typically one of the big market drivers for new product sales.

Based on the above, a long term universal 3D standard has to be based on a 120hz refresh capability.

Nonetheless, it would appear the active shutter system 3D glasses could function just fine at 60hz for 30 or 24 frame content. Writing that I recall that 24 frames would have to have 2/3 pull down applied so it runs at 30 frames and then recall that 120 hz is the magic refresh rate that 60/30/24 frames all fit into without any video processing - you just repeat frames. All of this simply means there could be a performance penalty for videophiles using a 60hz 3D system because that would require video processing which blu-ray and a 24 frame capable display resolves.

I would not be surprised if Sony were looking at such a universal system for PS3 3D gaming to be compatible with any HD display just from a sales perspective. Console gamers put up with a lot of poor performance as it is and I don't see how being stuck at 30 frames for 3D would create a universal console gaming frown since it already has high frame rate problems.

Sony providing this competing capability would open up one huge can of worms from 3D specs to 3D display sales just for Sony since they are neck deep in all of it! What about the impact for other manufacturers?

[hharris4earthlink]

I'm still confused.

See link: http://www.thedigitalnewsroom.com/en/Ne ... atible.htm

which says:

"An important point concerning 3D Blu-Ray is the compatibility with Blu-Ray disc players currently in homes. 3D Blu-Ray will deliver full HD 1080p resolution to each eye, and will deliver the 3D image to any compatible 3D display (LCD, Plasma...) regardless of what 3D technology the display uses to deliver the image. The specificities enable 2D playback of 3D Blu-Ray disc on the current Blu-Ray players."

The phrase "compatible 3D display (LCD, Plasma...) regardless of what 3D technology the display uses to deliver the image." is a tautology meaning nothing. Perhaps they meant to leave out the first "3D"?

[hharris4earthlink]

Not to belabor this topic, but, in my opinion, 3D is poised to become a significant advance, and I say that as someone who has managed the development of significant advanced technologies in the past.

I now believe the following text accurately portrays the situation: The new published 3D spec will allow for full 1080p content to be displayed in 3D, and it should work on any display (plasma, LCD, etc.) This is in reference to the current PS3 technology (which has just undergone a significant price drop), but, I'm convinced, will be adopted by other manufactures. By the way, I have no connection to Sony.

I know that many say that the requirement to wear special glasses removes this technology from the ideal class of products capable of mass marketing, but I predict that this will not be the case, and will only be finally replaced by holographic technology many, many years in the future, mainly because of the very large bandwidth requirements that technology requires.

This new standard for visual display (and that's what it is) is a very savvy compromise in bandwidth and user comfort. Granted, glasses are not the ideal way to watch any medium, but people wear glasses all the time in order to either cope with defects in vision (for example nearsightedness) or to protect the eyes from excessive solar radiation. I wouldn't be surprised if these new versions of 3D glasses become a fashion statement, identifying someone who's technologically savvy. (We'd call them 'hip' in my day)

I also won't be surprised if someone comes up with glasses that sense 3D content in the environment with the ability to automatically convert its function appropriately. Imagine walking into a store wearing sun glasses and having them seamlessly convert to 3D when looking at a display for a product. One day we may think of our glasses the way a fighter pilot thinks of his cockpit display, a multifunction extension to human vision which allows us to be more productive in countless ways.

[videograbber]

Huh? Your posts on this subject have been consistently suspicious, critical, and negative. Suddenly you're now effusively positive and optimistic.

I have just one question... what did you do with hharris?

- Tim