3D support?

[Oddwunn]

I know that the HD300 will not be able to playback 3D Blu-rays due to hardware limitations, but I was wondering what is in the pipeline for 3D support. Is an HD400 in the works which will have HDMI 1.4, and is any software being developed to play back 3D material?

[Fuzzy]

Just convert the video to Side-By-Side, and you can play it back just fine on the HD300 (or 200, for that matter). Just have to switch your tv to sidebyside mode manually.

[Oddwunn]

Thanks, Fuzzy, but I am a 3D idiot. I have never used 3D and only have a vague idea of what "side-by-side" means. First off, I thought that HDMI 1.4 was needed for 3D, and I believe that the HD300 has HDMI 1.3...am I wrong? Next, I thought that the video hardware had to support acceleration of dual video streams...again, am I mistaken? And doesn't the software player have to support dual video streams as well?

Or are you telling me that I can just rip a 3D Blu-ray with something like AnyDVD HD or DVDFab Passkey and play the ripped disk directly in the HD300, and as long as I have the HDMI output connected to a 3D display device, it will play properly right now? I am sorry for knowing so little...I am just trying to learn before I start buying 3D Blu-rays.

[doncote0]

Side By Side 3D is a broadcast and reassembly method similar to 3:2 pulldown. The main advantage is that Side By Side 3D broadcast channel has the same bandwidth as a normal HD broadcast channel. Same bandwidth means same HDMI cables.

Here is a good description @ http://www.best-3dtvs.com/what-is-side-by-side-3d/

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_television

While HDMI 1.4 devices will be capable of transmitting 3D pictures in full 1080p, HDMI 1.3 does not include such support. As an out-of-spec solution for the bitrate problem, a 3D image may be displayed at a lower resolution, like interlaced or at standard definition.

It's a bit confusing. Many cable makers, set makers and providers have helped make the information even more confusing.

For cables, the faster transmission is important as well as the greater bandwidth.

From http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdm...1_4_faq.aspx#5

Will any of the new HDMI 1.4 features require a new cable?

The HDMI Ethernet Channel feature will require a new cable that supports this functionality, either a Standard HDMI Cable with Ethernet or a High Speed HDMI Cable with Ethernet, depending on the maximum resolution to be supported. The Automotive Connection System will also employ a new class of cable, the Standard Automotive HDMI cable, which is designed specifically for automotive use.

All of the other new HDMI 1.4 features will be compatible with the existing categories of cables.

So for 1.4 and 1.4a devices, any Category 2 (a.k.a 340MHz a.k.a High Speed) WITH ETHERNET HDMI cable will be sufficient.

I have some Category 2 HDMI WITH ETHERNET cables that are listed at 1.3c and 1.3b1 standard levels. Even though that is their rating, they are equivalent and will provide the same performance as cables rated to the HDMI 1.4a standard.

In fact, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI

High Speed HDMI 1.3 cables can support all HDMI 1.4 features except for the HDMI Ethernet Channel.

[doncote0]

Quotes in this post from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI

HDMI 1.4 increases the maximum resolution and provides the HDMI Ethernet Channel, which allows for a 100 Mb/s Ethernet connection between the two HDMI connected devices and introduces an Audio Return Channel.

In SageTV the two connected devices are the STB and the recording device.

Most HDMI 1.3 devices will only support this for 1080i, exceptions include graphics cards in computers ...

As noted in the last post, however, compared to high definition broadcasts, Side by Side 3D will have the same bandwidth, require the same cables, record the same amount of data, display on the same devices...etc

I think 1080i for recorded 3D content would be amazing, but Side By Side 3D could that make even better.

[doncote0]

As an out-of-spec solution for the bitrate problem, a 3D image may be displayed at a lower resolution, like interlaced or at standard definition.

I let you know if I can see the 3D difference on an MVP output to a 3DTV.

[Oddwunn]

Thanks, doncote0, for that thorough and informative answer. After reading your link that explained side-by-side vs. frame sequential 3D, I am interested only in the very best quality 3D available, which from what I read seems to be frame sequential 3D used in Blu-ray disks, presumably at full 1080p resolution. Though the reduced resolution of side-by-side might be useful for broadcast 3D, that is not what I am interested in.

So my questions remain:

1. Is HDMI 1.4 needed for transmission of sequential frame 3D from a Blu-ray source? My DVDO Duo video processor has had a recent firmware upgrade which allows passthough of 3D signals (presumably all delivery methods) using its HDMI 1.3a hardware, but I am still assuming at this point that HDMI 1.4 (hardware, not cables) is needed at both the source end and display end in order to deliver full bandwidth 3D. Is this correct?

2. I will now assume that Fuzzy was recommending that I convert sequential frame 3D on Blu-ray disks to side-by-side so that the current Sage HD300 could be used. (BTW, how would you do that?) My question to Sage is "Do you have any intention of fully supporting sequential frame 3D at full resolution in the next generation of the HD series?" That is, I would like to rip my 3D Blu-ray disks, store them on my server either in Blu-ray format or remuxed to .MKV, and play them back at full resolution using a Sage box....is this in the pipeline or not?

Thanks again, doncote0...I learned a lot from you and the links you provided!

[Tiki]

For the easiest and best possible 3D experience, compatible with the most formats you want all your components to be HDMI 1.4a, but in some cases, HDMI 1.3 hardware can be made to work for 3D (consider that the PlayStation is 1.3 and it claims to support 3D).

There is a really concise article that sums this up here, and a slightly more in-depth one here.

[Fuzzy]

BluRay's aren't actually Frame sequential either. Bluray has, effectively 2 complete 1080p streams (one is derived from teh other, for space savings) using the H.264 MVC (Multi-View Codec). It is up to the player to decode the two video streams, and composite them in a way the TV can interpret (whether it's side-by-side, frame sequential, checkerboard, etc). There is nothing in HDMI 1.4 that adds to the capability/quality of 3D. The biggest thing HDMI 1.4 adds is auto-configuration of the 3D (so the bluray player can tell the tv to go to 3D mode, while the TV can tell the blu ray player what format it accepts). HDMI 1.3 is has plenty of bandwidth for 1080p24 x 2 (which, is still less than the 1080p60 I send from my HDMI 1.3 video card to my HDMI 1.3 tv). That 1080p24 x2 could either be 1920x1080x48fps (for frame sequential) or 3840x1080x24fps for Side-by-side.

[doncote0]

From http://www.best-3dtvs.com/difference...-and-hdmi-1-4/

Summary of differences between HDMI 1.4 and HDMI 1.3

HDMI 1.4 brings a number of new features for enabling 3D, and lays down a number of 3D format specifications to ensure device compatibility for the display of 3D content. HDMI 1.4 over the HDMI 1.3 framework will help provide better 3D compatibility while reducing the number of cables required thanks to the integrated Ethernet and return audio channel feature of HDMI 1.4.

From http://www.best-3dtvs.com/guides/3d-format-guide/

The key point to note is that practically all 3D TVs currently (all Active Shutter based, as well as some Passive 3D Displays) display the final 3D content on the screen in a Frame Sequential manner so as to work with Active Shutter 3D glasses.

[Oddwunn]

Ah, I think I get it...maybe.

I ripped one 3D Blu-ray just to see what streams were present and I found that there were two 1080p24 video streams present, one marked "left eye" and the other marked "right eye". So if I understand you correctly it is up to the player to decode both of those streams and then recombine them into a new stream (side-by-side or sequential frame) to be sent to the display device. And what you are suggesting to me is that I take those 2 streams and combine them myself manually through software to a side-be-side stream that the HD300 could output right now in its present form. Is that correct?

And if I wanted to retain full resolution, when I combined the 2 original 1920X1080X24 streams (for example), I would combine them as a single 3840X1080X24 side-by-side stream and I would have precisely the result I am expecting - a full 1920X1080X24 stream once decoded by the display device, and that HDMI 1.3 has enough bandwidth and is fully capable of delivering that side-by-side stream without the need for HDMI 1.4.

If I am on the right track, what software would I use (or could you point me to a guide) that would give me the ability to input the left and right eye streams from a Blu-ray and output a single side-by-side 3840X1080X24 stream that I could remux to .MKV (or to recreate the original Blu-ray structure) along with my audio and subtitle streams of choice? This sounds like it might be fun!

[Oddwunn]

The key point to note is that practically all 3D TVs currently (all Active Shutter based, as well as some Passive 3D Displays) display the final 3D content on the screen in a Frame Sequential manner so as to work with Active Shutter 3D glasses.

So perhaps I would be better off combining the two streams as 1920X1080X48 rather than 3840X1080X24 in order to reduce the number of conversions necessary?

[doncote0]

1. Is HDMI 1.4 needed for transmission of sequential frame 3D from a Blu-ray source?

No

My DVDO Duo video processor has had a recent firmware upgrade which allows passthough of 3D signals (presumably all delivery methods) using its HDMI 1.3a hardware, but I am still assuming at this point that HDMI 1.4 (hardware, not cables) is needed at both the source end and display end in order to deliver full bandwidth 3D. Is this correct?

Not quite. First, beware pass-through, you will need to look into the specs of your system passing information through to be sure. If your DVDO system is Category 2 with Ethernet rated, which I doubt, then it is 1.4 compliant.

As stated earlier, practically all 3D systems support sequential frame 3D. So for sequential frame 3D, HDMI 1.4 or 1.4a is not required* and HDMI 1.3 can be used. (*The HDMI 1.4 specification includes support for 4K resolution video content at 24Hz. Since movies record in that format, some HDMI 1.3 rated systems, like many 3D Blu Ray players, support 4K resolution at 24Hz). Even systems that cannot support the 4K resolution at 24Hz, can support it at another refresh rate, so the effect may be unnoticed.

2. I will now assume that Fuzzy was recommending that I convert sequential frame 3D on Blu-ray disks to side-by-side so that the current Sage HD300 could be used. (BTW, how would you do that?) My question to Sage is "Do you have any intention of fully supporting sequential frame 3D at full resolution in the next generation of the HD series?" That is, I would like to rip my 3D Blu-ray disks, store them on my server either in Blu-ray format or remuxed to .MKV, and play them back at full resolution using a Sage box....is this in the pipeline or not?

The Sage boxes are not 3D capable (yet) from what I know now, but they are HDMI 1.3 compliant. While everything else is in place, this part would need to be addressed to do 3D successfully. New hardware, a firmware update or a software solution may resolve this.

If your 3D Blu-ray player can play mkv's, rip as you wish and test out the rest by burning to a dvd. Let us know what you find.

[doncote0]

While I understand what you are attempting to do, remember that you need to stay within the limits of the HD300 (which I believe is 1080P). I don't know what it would do with anything greater, but if it scales then you are wasting some time.

It might be better to provide it with a maximum 1080P signal rather than have it scale down to 1080P and then have the TV upscale it to the 3D format.

For side by side, each side has half the horizontal resolution. So your
1920 X 1080 becomes 960X1080i (smashed together aspect ratio not maintained). The other side would be the same and then together they would make the entire 1920X1080P. The TV could recognize the R/L and side by side format and decode it.

As for the frame sequential, that is exactly as it sounds, one left frame and then one right frame, but 1080P is again the maximum.

If you are trying to get field sequential format, you need to interlace the left and right (1 left and 1 right frame = 2 interlaced frames).

[Oddwunn]

If your 3D Blu-ray player can play mkv's, rip as you wish and test out the rest by burning to a dvd. Let us know what you find.

I don't have a 3D Blu-ray player. I have an Oppo BDP-83 (non 3D) and though it is touted as a universal player, it really falls short. It will only recognize FAT and FAT32 (and not NTFS), so it has a file size limit of 4 GB, nowhere near enough for an entire movie. As a result, I gave up trying to play .MKV files on it...Then along comes the Sage HD300...MUCH better universal player and it even decodes multi channel FLAC to boot, so I built a good sized media server (40 TB) and have ripped all of my Blu-rays and remuxed to .MKV...much more convenient than switching disks all of the time and dealing with menus, previews, FBI warnings, etc.

Now I am thinking of moving into 3D, but before I do so, I want to have a player in place that will not only handle my new 3D rips, but also all of my "old" 2D .MKV remuxes, so I am not even interested in buying the new Oppo BDP 93 3D player. This is why I am asking so many questions about the HD300 and its capabilities regarding 3D. I want to store everything on my server and play it all back from a single universal player, and I am wondering if the HD400 (or whatever they will call it) OR a firmware update of the current HD300 will be the answer for my future needs. This can be done from an HTPC right now (though I have not personally tried it), but HTPCs have issues too and I would prefer to have the simplicity, effectiveness, and universality of the HD300 instead.

I am not lazy...if there is a way to convert the current 3D Blu-rays into a stream that could be delivered to the display by the current HD300, I am more than willing to do the work. I just need to know how it's done...

Or if someone from Sage would read this thread and comment on the future of the HD series in regard to 3D, I would really appreciate that also.

[Oddwunn]

It might be better to provide it with a maximum 1080P signal rather than have it scale down to 1080P and then have the TV upscale it to the 3D format.

Gotcha...So I will probably have to give up on the idea of converting to 3840X1080X24 side-by-side because of the limitations of the HD300.

For side by side, each side has half the horizontal resolution. So your
1920 X 1080 becomes 960X1080i (smashed together aspect ratio not maintained). The other side would be the same and then together they would make the entire 1920X1080P. The TV could recognize the R/L and side by side format and decode it.

So if I am understanding you correctly, I would have to settle for half horizontal resolution side-by-side if I wanted to deliver it using the current HD300 capabilities, as 1080p is the current limit of the HD300. Hmmm....it would be an interesting experiment. Has anyone actually tried this out yet?

As for the frame sequential, that is exactly as it sounds, one left frame and then one right frame, but 1080P is again the maximum.

If you are trying to get field sequential format, you need to interlace the left and right (1 left and 1 right frame = 2 interlaced frames).

We will still need Sage to do some sort of firmware update to properly deliver 1920X1080X48hz field sequential format, right?

[doncote0]

We will still need Sage to do some sort of firmware update to properly deliver 1920X1080X48hz field sequential format, right?

I see what you are saying. Movies are recorded in 24Hz formats, so the system will need both at the same time (48Hz) to deliver 3D at the intended 24Hz resolution.

If the TV recognizes the format, great. But thats assuming a lot from most TV AI's. Frame sequential would probably be recognized by default. Frame sequential format output from Sage should give 3D, but I am not sure what you will see with side by side or field sequential.

For those formats, I think a little cross talk goes on between the TV and the connected device.

Here's a simple example that simulated cross-talk.

[BDP]Hi TV, I'm a blu-ray player set at 1080P resolution
[TV]Hi BDR, noted and waiting.
[BDP]Sending data.
[TV]3D data stream detected, received and waiting for more.

OR

[BDP]Hi TV, I'm a blu-ray player set at 1080P resolution
[TV]Hi BDR, noted and waiting.
[BDP]Sending data formed in [side by side or other 3D] format.
[TV]3D data stream detected, received and waiting. [OR Not understood.*]

*Without being told, the TV might not understand which "language" is in use. Even then, the TV needs to know the "language" being used.

Even if frame sequential was not recognized by the TV, you could force the issue by placing the TV in 3D mode.

[doncote0]

My big questions now are regarding how the blu-ray information is ripped and converted.

Does my 3D blu ray rip to a sequential frame 3D format or does it just keep one side? If it does rip during conversion and it down converts, does it drop any frames? Dropping every other frame would cause a 48Hz frame sequential 3D presentation to become a 24Hz non3D presentation (you would only have one side). Dropping every 3rd frame would not be any better --it would destroy the 3D effect since the viewing sides would switch in a non-alternating fashion.

1 2 3 4 5 6
R L R L R L
x x

would become
RLLR

This loss of frames might just be the key.
I will have to test it, being careful of the selections used during ripping a 3D movie. Guess it would also be nice if that the software used is 3D aware.

40TB media server

Cool.

[Fuzzy]

I'm pretty sure frame sequential isn't going to work for an HD300. You can't implement frame sequential BEFORE compression, because the 2 frames would have artifacts from each other. The HD300 doesn't have the capability to decode the two streams, and composite/display them in frame sequential. this is why side-by-side is the only option.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by doncote0

My big questions now are regarding how the blu-ray information is ripped and converted.

Does my 3D blu ray rip to a sequential frame 3D format or does it just keep one side? If it does rip during conversion and it down converts, does it drop any frames? Dropping every other frame would cause a 48Hz frame sequential 3D presentation to become a 24Hz non3D presentation (you would only have one side). Dropping every 3rd frame would not be any better --it would destroy the 3D effect since the viewing sides would switch in a non-alternating fashion.

1 2 3 4 5 6
R L R L R L
x x

would become
RLLR

This loss of frames might just be the key.
I will have to test it, being careful of the selections used during ripping a 3D movie. Guess it would also be nice if that the software used is 3D aware.



Cool.

BluRay doesn't store anything in frame sequential. It also doesn't store two streams. It has a single stream (left eye), and a 'difference' stream that it uses with the left eye to create the right eye. This is called MVC (Multi-View Codec). The MVC codec is implemented in such a way that non-MVC compliant devices/programs will just ignore the MVC packets, and read/interpret JUST the left eye. The BluRay standard even goes so far as to present these as two different M2TS files (one with the MVC packets removed as a virtual file).

If you want to rip the 3d Bluray, your optionsa re to rip it to an ISO or BDMV folder (ISO would be preferred because it is MUCH smaller - going to a folder will copy the virtual M2TS as it's own file, almost doubling the size of the folder) and play it back in something that can handle the 3D properly (I use ArcSoft TMT5). Or rip and decode it as two files, join the two files into a single Half-SBS video, and play it back with the HD300.