3D TV In Ireland

Sponge Bob

Still grinding through standards (DVB-3DTV was ratified by the DVB a few weeks ago and passed to ETSI for co-ratification) but here is the data picture.

1. HD TV will take up around 15mbits
2. 3D TV Frame Compatible is around 24mbits but is reverse compatible with 2D HD with extra data added. This is the standard that is almost fully approved. Decoder makers can get with the busy right now.
3. 3D TV Non Frame Compatible broadcasts double rate (albeit minus FC encoding memes) and is around 30mbits on a separate signal to the 2D HD one and not backward compatible I think ...ie a 2D and 3D simulcast would be around 45mbits = more than a mux can carry. Non frame compatible interlaced leaft and right eye frames. Maybe 2D HD becomes either Left OR Right eye stream meaning simulcast is possible.

Does anybody reckon the BAI consultation may have been prodded by the possibility of 3D TV coming onto the market...and when is this likely to happen does anyone think.

I can see it happening with sports and movies and certain reality/game type optimised content. Next week the DVB annual shindig called DVB World starts and we can expect mucho 3d noise....whatever about announcements and roadmaps.

From what I can make out the 3D extra signalisation can be packed in the Mpeg4 stream and unpacked by a 3D decoder..meaning a 'normal' Irish 2D HD TV or Irish 2D SD TV would ignore it in a simulcast. The key extension is in the Recent MPEG4 AVC codecs. 3d subtitling maybe not ...but picture yes

From the standard.

This section specifies the signalling associated with frame compatible plano-stereoscopic 3DTV services. This
signalling consists of the following components:
Signalling in the transport layer, using MPEG-2 PSI and DVB Service Information (SI);
Signalling in the video stream, using the H.264/AVC Supplemental Enhancement Information (SEI);
Signalling in the subtitles, as defined in an extension to the DVB subtitles specification [EN300743].
Figure 4 shows the various aspects of signalling specified for the carriage of frame compatible plano-stereoscopic
3DTV services in DVB delivery systems.

Bit more further reading in this document if you are coming anew to it.

http://www.slideshare.net/davidmetge/3-dtv-ellismetgevergeziba

watty

Sky sticks two 960 x 1080i images in a 1920x1080i frame.

No additional TV or setbox hardware, same as Multiscreen to fill screen, just software.
The frame rate is doubled on display and each 1/2 of frame shown alternately.

All simple software. 3D TVs grossly over priced. About 20c to 40c for the IR LED on TV sending 50Hz or 100Hz pulses to the LCD shutter glasses.

Only extra cost is the €10 glasses sold at €80

I don't think the BAI thing is to do with 3D.

All TVs will include 3D with time as it costs nearly nothing, only the glasses cost extra.

But it doesn't really work for about 20% of people and prolonged viewing creates headache as the eye trys to focus at different distances, but all the two images for the two eyes are at a single fixed distance.

If you have a sightly lazy eye, very unlikely to work. It's Victorian Stereoscopic viewing, not 3D. Identical to "Viewmaster" toy.

Yes, a 2D screen can simply ignore the left or right image, but needs 3D aware software, currently you see two squished side by side videos. Due to bandwidth costs, until TV is using Ka-Band, it's likely to be more anamorphic than normal SD WS. i.e. two squished 960 x 1080i images, rather than 1440 x1080i or 1920 x1080i

I presume some combination of flags and formats in the document endorses what Sky and others in Europe have been doing since last year. Two 960 x 1080i images in a regular 1920x1080i frame. One station on 9E ku is transmitting exact format Sky uses. Looking at it on NON-3D HDTV or PC you do indeed see a regular HD video, reported as 1920x1080i and in it are the left and right squished side by side.

The DVBViewer folk have beta for 3D TVs and PCs able to generate the shutter signal for glasses (ordinary screen can work at 1920 x 1080p 50!) The GPU deinterlaces, stretches image and displays at 50fps, but alternate 25fps are left and right eye.

The feedback I get is that 3D gaming (stereoscopic) has more potential and 3D TV is a niche. If you add head or eye tracking the game experience is very impressive, if you have stereoscopic vision.

You can see real 3D with one eye. Stereoscopic (all current commercial TVs and games) simply is a regular image with one eye.


Written 19 October 2009 - 11:58am http://www.techtir.ie/tv-radio/3d-tv

Written 1 October 2010 - 11:31am http://www.techtir.ie/blog/watty/sky-launch-3d-channel

Sponge Bob

You are right Watty, it is the SKY standard where the left and right images are broadcast in one frame and a cropping is executed thereafter ( and I assume the right cropped bit is held and shown after the left cropped bit is shown) . No encoding is used as such, a cropping rule is applied on receipt.

The frames are larger than normal HD ones but come inside the display standard after they are cropped.

Annex B Page 26 of standard linked above.

Annex B: HDTV service compatibility (informative)
This annex provides informative guidelines on possible modes of operation of frame compatible plano-stereoscopic
3DTV services that give service compatible operation with HDTV services under certain conditions. This kind of
service compatibility is enabled by the HDTV decoder extracting the left view from the two views contained in the
frame compatible plano-stereoscopic 3DTV service video stream, and up-scaling it to simulate the reception of an
HDTV service. There are, however, inconsistencies with previously adopted signalling mechanisms that are inherent
with some of these modes. The guidelines are detailed below.
Such service compatible modes could enable a service provider to transmit a single service that provides both frame
compatible plano-stereoscopic 3DTV video and reduced-resolution HDTV video concurrently, whereas normally
HDTV coverage with the same source content would be provided with a separate dedicated HDTV service.
Such a transmission could address 3DTV cognisant receivers and/or 3DTV incognisant receivers, whereby a 3DTV
cognisant receiver is able to selectively output a video signal (either 3DTV or HDTV) that is appropriate for its own
display capabilities, or for the capabilities of the connected display.
In the case of 3DTV cognisant receivers the service compatibility is achieved solely as a receiver implementation
option, as mentioned in section 4.2 on IRD scenarios, and no modification to the transmitted signal is required
compared to a frame compatible plano-stereoscopic 3DTV service transmission addressing only 3DTV receivers as
specified in the main part of the present document, using the signalling specified in section 6.
For IRD scenario D described in section 4.2, the 3DTV IRD (STB), which is inherently 3DTV cognisant, could be
implemented such that it applies such upscaling to the left view of the frame compatible plano-stereoscopic 3DTV
service to provide the half-resolution video output to the HDTV display.
Likewise for IRD scenarios E and F, the HDTV IRD could be implemented to be 3DTV cognisant, such that it applies
such upscaling to the left view of the frame compatible plano-stereoscopic 3DTV service to provide half-resolution
HDTV video.
In some cases it might be possible to implement the support of the service compatible modes via an interactive
application, on platforms that include access to the appropriate video processing functionality of the IRD.
For HDTV IRDs that are 3DTV incognisant and do not support such selective upscaling of frame compatible planostereoscopic
3DTV service video content, two signalling tools of the H.264/AVC video codec [H264_AVC] could be
utilised in order to facilitate the service compatible modes 􀂱 the cropping rectangle and the sample aspect ratio. These
can be applied to the frame compatible plano-stereoscopic 3DTV service video content in order to attempt to force
IRDs to apply upscaling to the left view, to output half-resolution HDTV video instead of the left and right views, as
HDTV video.
To apply the cropping rectangle feature, the field frame_cropping_flag of the H.264/AVC seq_parameter_set_data()
provides the settings of frame crop offsets (in terms of luma samples) and the sample aspect
ratio for the frame compatible plano-stereoscopic 3DTV video formats specified in section 5.1 that are suitable for
application of this signalling

.

ted1

as long as you need to year glasses i can see the fad dying off within three years. It's also roving potentially good films as they try to fit go novelty shots. If they really want to give the viewer a better experience they should focus on broad casting in surround sound

Sam Russell

Would it be possible to broadcast 3D as:

Full HD left view at full resolution, with the right view at 25 frames, and SD resolution requiring 50% of an SD channel.

This would give a fully compatible HD signal for non-3D use, with the 3D reconstituted by upscaling the RH view at a bandwith penalty of half a SD channel. The eye, I would think would fill in the blanks as it does with colour.

I must declare an interest, I am one of the 20%? who cannot see 3D, and I do not wear glasses, nor do I need them.

watty

That won't work.

Nice try.

A Set-box that understands 3D and later versions of non-3d TVs (but all new TVs will be 3D capababile in a few years) can simply show the signal for Left or Right as full frame.


Actually there is little or no correlation between needing glasses to watch TV or any other activity and ability to perceive Stereo Images.

Sam Russell

watty wrote: »

Actually there is little or no correlation between needing glasses to watch TV or any other activity and ability to perceive Stereo Images.

There is in my case.:) No glasses - no 3D.

My two eyes are independent - I only see through one eye at a time. One is slightly short sighted, the other long sighted. I automatically ( and subconsciously) choose the correct eye. My opthamologist told me people pay large sums to have eyes like mine. As a child I had three operations on my eyes. Well, there you go, have not worn glasses for years, and my eyesight is perfect (except for 3D). And my two eyes look in the same direction all the time.

Sam Russell

watty wrote: »

That won't work.

Nice try.

A Set-box that understands 3D and later versions of non-3d TVs (but all new TVs will be 3D capababile in a few years) can simply show the signal for Left or Right as full frame.

The 3D broadcasts as proposed (as used by all these new 3D TVs) will be of less definition for non 3D display. I cannot watch the 3D display without the daft specs, and I cannot see the 3d effect with the daft specs. With the proposed sysem (not their system, mine) any TV could disable the 3D effect and show full HD - no loss of definition. 3D sets would construct the 3D image from the left image by ignoring every other frame, and construct the right image by upscaling it and inserting it. Because the right image is SD, and half frame speed, it would be a low overhead.

This is simillar to the way PAL colour is acheived, sending the monochome image at full resolution, and broadcasting the colour image at a lower resolution and as a difference signal. The set then reconstitutes the signal. A monochrome TV ignores the extra signal.

The same method is used with stereo sound on FM. The basic mono is broadcast as normal, with the stereo difference broadcast on a sub-carrier.

I think it would work better than the current system which is very lossy for non 3D viewers.

watty

It's actually JUST as lossy for 3D viewers.

The two images need to be exactly the same resolution and coding. Otherwise you would see increased flicker on 3D, possibly loss of depth illusion.

Your suggestion isn't the same as how Stereo works as the L-R signal is same bandwidth as mono actually.

A difference image of the L-R images would be very high overhead to encode. It would take more bandwidth than a Right image.

MPEG2 and MPEG4 coding efficiency is based on "natural images". The lowest bandwidth method of stereoscopic TV that actually works is to transmit two identical resolution images, either in parallel in one image frame, or in two streams coded identically.

A 2D user of 3D image as they are currently sent gets the SAME quality as the 3D viewer. It's identical to a "Stereoscopic Glasses" user with 3D closing one eye (they will see it slightly dimmer). Presenting left and right images to each eye doesn't add ANYTHING to quality compared with only using left or right images for both eyes. Only adds the depth illusion.

Sam Russell

I suppose the only way to check would be to do some trials. Not likely.

I will not be watching any 3D images now or ever. It is pointless for me, and probably for everyone. 3D is only much use in close up, and the effect would be exagerated by film makers. The extra bandwidth would be better used to provide better movement resolution. (more frames per second)

watty

Film Industry is still 24fps
Frames repeated twice in Cinema to reduce flicker.

What we need is better content.
Less to actually watch than when there was only 4 UK channels.

watty

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is in my case.:) No glasses - no 3D.

My two eyes are independent - I only see through one eye at a time. One is slightly short sighted, the other long sighted. I automatically ( and subconsciously) choose the correct eye. My opthamologist told me people pay large sums to have eyes like mine. As a child I had three operations on my eyes. Well, there you go, have not worn glasses for years, and my eyesight is perfect (except for 3D). And my two eyes look in the same direction all the time.

That's handy when you get old and the eyes stiffen up

Sam Russell

watty wrote: »

That's handy when you get old and the eyes stiffen up

The important thing is to have them both point in the same direction.

Most things stiffen up when you get old. Most, but not all.