3DTV Support - Play "3D" Movies in XBMC plus have GUI / OSD and subtitles just work?

  Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Post Reply
rchapoteau Offline
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 0
Lightbulb  3DTV Support - Play "3D" Movies in XBMC plus have GUI / OSD and subtitles just work?
Post: #1
After all of the CES news I've gotten interested in the idea of 3D. Does XBMC currently support playing 3D movies? If not is there any plans for it in the future?

From my understanding what I can see it looks like your tv would need to support 120hz. I guess that means XBMC would also have to output 120hz.
(This post was last modified: 2014-07-23 23:40 by jjd-uk.)
find quote
kevcampbell Offline
Senior Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 0
Location: England
Post: #2
i would also like to know the answer to that question

i love xbmc
find quote
osli Offline
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #3
you would also need support for the media holding the video, and i believe this means only bluray for now. so we'll have to wait for xbmc to support that natively at the very minimum.
find quote
rchapoteau Offline
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 0
Post: #4
osli Wrote:you would also need support for the media holding the video, and i believe this means only bluray for now. so we'll have to wait for xbmc to support that natively at the very minimum.

I'm not sure that it needs to support blu-ray for this to happen. I mean blu-ray is just the storage container right? If you can rip the content, then you should be able to play it right?
find quote
osli Offline
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #5
rchapoteau Wrote:I'm not sure that it needs to support blu-ray for this to happen. I mean blu-ray is just the storage container right? If you can rip the content, then you should be able to play it right?

Well... maybe? I haven't really taken a look at the format proposed for 3D content yet, other than I thought it was likely to be limited to bluray (i.e., no DVD versions). XBMC doesn't have support for the bluray menu structure, nor does any open source or free software player yet, but xbmc can play the native m2ts video streams which are encoded with h.264 or VC-1. To achieve 3D, I assume (careful there!) you'd either have to decode two simultaneous streams of the current bluray format, or decode a stream of double the framerate (obviously with alternative L/R frames). I'm guessing it's the latter? So I suppose the question is whether xbmc can decode a 48 or 60 fps h.264 or VC-1 stream? I don't know if those framerates were part of the original bluray spec capabilities and if they were the limits of the original codecs, or if they are extensions and thus perhaps less likely to be supported by xbmc.

And then there is the question of whether the hdcp and HDMI paths in today's pc videocards would properly handle and pass a stream of double the framerate.
find quote
ccMatrix Offline
Alaska Group
Posts: 470
Joined: Oct 2008
Post: #6
I guess 3D capabilities will very much depend on the 3D technology. There are currently way too many different ways to display 3D content to just say yes or no. One factor is surely how much is handled by the display itself and how the display will know if the content is supposed to be 3D. If - for example - the display automatically switches to 3D mode for ~60fps files and takes care of the shutter glasses sync (if needed) then XBMC is probably capable of doing it. If XBMC needs to set a specific output mode to enable 3D or even do the timing of the shutter glasses then this would need additional code inside XBMC. Since the whole technology is still very very young I wouldn't expect anything in the near future. First, there needs to be some 3D content (unencrypted blu-ray video data or some mkv/mp4 container). Then the XBMC developers would need some 3D playback device (display). And then there is a chance for some 3D specific XBMC code. Since 3D displays are probably very expensive when they come out it will easily take months or years until XBMC devs have the hardware to test and implement any 3D playback.
find quote
Swifty Offline
Fan
Posts: 602
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 5
Post: #7
You could always checkout the Nvidia 3d vision stuff.
As far as I know it doesn't require the content to be 3d in the first place, so anything you play gets the 3d treatment (i think!)
http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_Main.html
find quote
magnus67 Offline
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation: 0
Post: #8
The IZ3D player is open source and could be used as referens. I dont think it includes the output part as they use there own driver. it´s based on media player classic. I would realy like the funktionality of stereoscopic playerSmile

http://www.iz3d.com

www.3dtv.at
find quote
xmltok Offline
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #9
I was able to play some demo videos that were side by side but not FHD3D. I've tried to get X11 to use a FHD3D resolution but without luck. It may be that the 9400M on my MacMini doesn't have enough RAM.

The clips used to be available at http://3dguy.tv/downloads/side-by-side/ but it looks like they are all dead links now.

At least with my TV (Panasonic VT25) it looks like XBMC just needs to switch into a compatible resolution, like 1920x2160 or 3840x1080 and the TV will auto switch into 3D mode.

Of course the overlay menus would need to be mirrored.
find quote
arkryal Offline
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 20
Post: #10
The trouble with XBMC supporting 3d is that the current 3DTV standard proposed relies on shutter glasses. One lens goes black while the other is transparent. Then they switch. This happens 60, 75, 90, 110 or 120 times a second (depending on manufacturer and model), so it's not noticeable... as long as the video stays synced. The glasses fall out of sync often, and different systems running XBMC will have variable frame-rates (that's unavoidable using non-standard hardware like a PC). Sony and others use an IR receiver to let the glasses know when to change based on the frame currently shown. When the glasses are out of sync, they pause and wait for the next frame before continuing. Since this happens so fast, you don't notice it. But unless XBMC can interface with that IR hardware and send signals to the glasses, or receive them and drop a frame (depending on who's 3D system you're using) the glasses/frames won't resync on their own. This creates a strobing effect, makes the picture look dimmer..brighter..dimmer, flickering like a candle, and gives most people headaches. Complicating matters, most do not simply alternate at a fixed interval, it's based on the perceived motion on the screen, screen color etc. Different glasses work at different frequencies. The proposed 3D standard only applies to how the video is encoded and how the discs are made. The sync system in the glasses is not standard, determined solely by the manufacturer of the glasses. XBMC would have to support many different standards which aren't open to independent developers. No one like reverse engineering a hundred different pieces of expensive proprietary hardware, risking patent infringement. They would need to find one manufacturer to support, who in turn would have to be willing to support them. If someone really wanted to pursue this, it would be worth talking to manufacturers first.

It's worth holding off on 3D support for now.

There are several reasons. First, there isn't really an accepted standard in Home 3D now. People seem to be getting behind Sony now, they're the top contender, but it requires licensing fees to be paid to them for both the method of converting video from 2 perspectives into something that plays on a 3D TV, and licensing on the actual blu-ray 3D disc. Their format also relies on active shutter glasses.

There are a few other technologies emerging. One using parallax projection (like you see in the movie theaters) that sends polarized light to different eyes through polarized lenses. The 3D glasses are cheap ($5.00 instead of $200+), and require no sensors or batteries, are lighter, and can be made more comfortable (like sunglasses instead of a head-strapped windshield). If you wear eye-glasses, they can even be made in your prescription so you aren't wearing one pair over the other.

Another option is a lenticular screen. Rather than being smooth, the pixels on the screen are arranged in small pyramids, with each side projecting a slightly different image. If you've ever seen the 3D baseball cards, it's similar. The perspective changes as you move around it. Tilting your head lets you see around foreground objects. The tech ins't totally there yet, but they do look awesome, and the manufacture cost is much lower. This requires no glasses.

Last, and more importantly, there are several groups using parallax (the differential between what the left and right eye see) images in current 3D movies of other formats and creating a depth map (Z-Axis interpolation). The video is then reencoded in real-time at 60fps from a combination of the two images based on your position in the room (by using head tracking). This only works for a single viewer, multiple people can't watch the same movie in 3D mode at the same time since the perspective is set based on the location of one person. The advantage is it looks better than any of the others, and requires only a cheap webcam to track your position. This is being created as a 3D codec that will be easy to implement in software packages like XBMC and requires only cheap hardware most people already have. The file size once encoded is 25% smaller than the best compression you can get on 2 video streams. Given the ease of entry and smaller file sizes, I think this is what's going to win out in file sharing and torrent sites, which quite frankly makes up most the common XBMC user's library. This is still in the early stages of development, and I should warn, the GPU usage is through the roof, about 4 times what's needed for 1080p playback. Even then it's a bit choppy on all but the optimized demos. Still, it's coming and is worthy of consideration.

In the end, I think we'll see a hybrid of 2 or more of these technologies. The trouble with glasses is that you can't choose what to focus on, things fade in and out based on the camera focus, not your eye. Minimizing the distance of cameras when filming eliminates that blur on the edges, but also reduces the illusion of depth. Combining that with head tracking and 5-6 video channels instead of 2 creates the only life-like 3D video I've ever seen. When you've demoed good 3D packages, you quickly realize that thing like "Avatar" are poorly implemented gimmicks, and not good enough for your money. With several competitors with different technologies coming to the marketplace over the next 2-3 years, I think you'll see a new format war. Early adopters will probably get a good 5-10 years before having any incentive to change hardware, but with so many new technologies on the horizon from competing parties, I wouldn't invest too much in this.

Here's a clip about head tracking from a few years ago most of you 3D buffs have probably seen already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-...r_embedded

Now incorporate that type of technology with a better head tracking device, similar to Xbox Kinnect (project Natal). Now you get the same effect in games without any awkward headgear.

Now imagine that processing power is used for real-time rendering of an animated movie. A next-gen console should have little problem with that. Non-animated movies would have to be shot from at least 5 angles, probably necessitating an new disc media, but similar effects can be achieved using the additional perspectives and Z-Axis interpolation.

Add to that parallax display from a lenticular screen and you have something incredible. This is where we're headed. There are patents being filed by Sony, MS, and several major movie studios. Once they work that out, all hell will break loose with another format war, and the end product won't resemble 3D as we know it today.

The next major breakthrough will be in gaming, since frames are generated at variable perspectives on the fly, rather than fixed to the position of a camera when filming. Keep an Eye on Microsoft's Kinnect and nVidia's 3D vision. The technologies are very compatible, and the two companies work closely on many projects. Sony will follow suit with something very comparable, based on the Current 3DTV standard they're pushing and their Playstation. You'll see the real momentum building with the next game console release from either company. Movies will catch-up shortly after.
(This post was last modified: 2010-07-07 07:50 by arkryal.)
find quote
aptalca Online
The Dude
Posts: 904
Joined: Sep 2009
Reputation: 23
Post: #11
I can actually see xbmc being compatible with DLPLink glasses. They require no emitters or such. The projector or the tv set simply receives a picture with 120 frames per second (as opposed to 60, because it shows one frame for the left eye, followed by a frame for the right eye) and the display inserts extra frames in between left and right frames that allows the glasses to sync.

In that case, the rips would be regular mkvs encoded in 120 frames per second in the left-right-left. . . scheme, xbmc (in fact ffmpeg) would play these like regular mkvs (just with a different framerate) and the display would automatically insert sync frames whenever it detected a 120hz input.

Several projectors and TVs already support this. Only ffmpeg would have to support 120hz mkvs (they already might, I don't know)
find quote
elupus Offline
Team-XBMC Developer
Posts: 3,796
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
Post: #12
The double refreshrate method will be tricky, as it will require us syncing playback of frames exactly to the display's hz. This is very hard todo with standard pc's.

The side by side method on the other hand would be abit simpler to support.

Always read the XBMC online-manual, FAQ and search the forum before posting.
Do not e-mail XBMC-Team members directly asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting please make sure you read this first.


[Image: badge.gif]
find quote
arkryal Offline
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 20
Post: #13
aptalca Wrote:I can actually see xbmc being compatible with DLPLink glasses. They require no emitters or such. The projector or the tv set simply receives a picture with 120 frames per second (as opposed to 60, because it shows one frame for the left eye, followed by a frame for the right eye) and the display inserts extra frames in between left and right frames that allows the glasses to sync.

In that case, the rips would be regular mkvs encoded in 120 frames per second in the left-right-left. . . scheme, xbmc (in fact ffmpeg) would play these like regular mkvs (just with a different framerate) and the display would automatically insert sync frames whenever it detected a 120hz input.

Several projectors and TVs already support this. Only ffmpeg would have to support 120hz mkvs (they already might, I don't know)

I've done this on my PC at 90FPS using FFMpeg, admittedly using shitty glasses (e-Dimensional I believe). Without an adaptive sync scheme, there was a profound strobing effect. 120Hz would definitely be better, and using professional glasses rather than a sub $100 piece of junk would help, but I don't see closing the gap based on static timing. I suppose a static resync cycle could be worked in, with a 3 defined pauses every 3-4 seconds, with the glasses operating at 120hz and the screen at 110hz, reducing the visibility of errors, but even that may not be enough. Basically you wold force a desync frequently and often enough that it doesn't flicker, at the cost of some perceptive depth and a bit of blur. It's easier on the eyes, but at a loss of some of the realism.

I have access to a variety of 3D output devices, but no 3D compatible TV, only a PC monitor with comparable refresh rates. I'd be happy to test if an ambitious coder takes up this project, but it wouldn't be done in the XBMC code. It would be accomplished with an external decoder most likely. I'd wait to see what FFMpeg or VLC comes up with. Then it's just a matter of detecting 3D content in XBMC and launching the right decoder to view it.

The real issue is there are a limited number of people I've seen here who have a background in this type of work. The wide variation in available hardware makes a universal solution unlikely, at best we could achieve mediocrity for some and nothing for others depending on the systems they choose to support. Even then, it only serves a very small portion of the XBMC user base. I'd love to see 3D support, but it's a lot of work for very little return.

If someone out there thinks the can handle this, and it's a high priority for them, deal me in, I'll be glad to support them with testing. I just don't think many will volunteer for that work.
find quote
aptalca Online
The Dude
Posts: 904
Joined: Sep 2009
Reputation: 23
Post: #14
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1254052

On here, this dude was able to take the directv espn 3d broadcast, capture it with an AverTV HD DVR capture card, pass it through a stereoscopic player to convert it to frame sequential and output it to his 3d projector in 120Hz format. The projector, upon recognizing a 120Hz input, automatically switches to 3d mode and inserts the sync frames for DLP Link glasses. He's been watching the World cup in 3d on a humongous screen.

The projector is Optoma HD66, it can only take an input of a regular 120Hz frame sequential picture. No side by side or Full frame packing supported on this pj, therefore it is not directly compatible with 3d bluray players or set top boxes. However, it costs only $650 and is 720p.

All we need to do is have mkvs with frames sequential 120 frames per second and have xbmc/ffmpeg output it the same way the stereoscopic player does. That way, it will be compatible with (I believe) all 3d projectors and most 3DTVs (except for the checkerboard ones I guess).

What do you guys think?
find quote
EMK0 Offline
Senior Member
Posts: 209
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #15
arkryal Wrote:The trouble with XBMC supporting 3d is that the current 3DTV standard proposed relies on shutter glasses. One lens goes black while the other is transparent. Then they switch. This happens 60, 75, 90, 110 or 120 times a second (depending on manufacturer and model), so it's not noticeable... as long as the video stays synced. The glasses fall out of sync often, and different systems running XBMC will have variable frame-rates (that's unavoidable using non-standard hardware like a PC). Sony and others use an IR receiver to let the glasses know when to change based on the frame currently shown. When the glasses are out of sync, they pause and wait for the next frame before continuing. Since this happens so fast, you don't notice it. But unless XBMC can interface with that IR hardware and send signals to the glasses, or receive them and drop a frame (depending on who's 3D system you're using) the glasses/frames won't resync on their own. This creates a strobing effect, makes the picture look dimmer..brighter..dimmer, flickering like a candle, and gives most people headaches. Complicating matters, most do not simply alternate at a fixed interval, it's based on the perceived motion on the screen, screen color etc. Different glasses work at different frequencies. The proposed 3D standard only applies to how the video is encoded and how the discs are made. The sync system in the glasses is not standard, determined solely by the manufacturer of the glasses. XBMC would have to support many different standards which aren't open to independent developers. No one like reverse engineering a hundred different pieces of expensive proprietary hardware, risking patent infringement. They would need to find one manufacturer to support, who in turn would have to be willing to support them. If someone really wanted to pursue this, it would be worth talking to manufacturers first.

It's worth holding off on 3D support for now.

There are several reasons. First, there isn't really an accepted standard in Home 3D now. People seem to be getting behind Sony now, they're the top contender, but it requires licensing fees to be paid to them for both the method of converting video from 2 perspectives into something that plays on a 3D TV, and licensing on the actual blu-ray 3D disc. Their format also relies on active shutter glasses.

There are a few other technologies emerging. One using parallax projection (like you see in the movie theaters) that sends polarized light to different eyes through polarized lenses. The 3D glasses are cheap ($5.00 instead of $200+), and require no sensors or batteries, are lighter, and can be made more comfortable (like sunglasses instead of a head-strapped windshield). If you wear eye-glasses, they can even be made in your prescription so you aren't wearing one pair over the other.

Another option is a lenticular screen. Rather than being smooth, the pixels on the screen are arranged in small pyramids, with each side projecting a slightly different image. If you've ever seen the 3D baseball cards, it's similar. The perspective changes as you move around it. Tilting your head lets you see around foreground objects. The tech ins't totally there yet, but they do look awesome, and the manufacture cost is much lower. This requires no glasses.

Last, and more importantly, there are several groups using parallax (the differential between what the left and right eye see) images in current 3D movies of other formats and creating a depth map (Z-Axis interpolation). The video is then reencoded in real-time at 60fps from a combination of the two images based on your position in the room (by using head tracking). This only works for a single viewer, multiple people can't watch the same movie in 3D mode at the same time since the perspective is set based on the location of one person. The advantage is it looks better than any of the others, and requires only a cheap webcam to track your position. This is being created as a 3D codec that will be easy to implement in software packages like XBMC and requires only cheap hardware most people already have. The file size once encoded is 25% smaller than the best compression you can get on 2 video streams. Given the ease of entry and smaller file sizes, I think this is what's going to win out in file sharing and torrent sites, which quite frankly makes up most the common XBMC user's library. This is still in the early stages of development, and I should warn, the GPU usage is through the roof, about 4 times what's needed for 1080p playback. Even then it's a bit choppy on all but the optimized demos. Still, it's coming and is worthy of consideration.

In the end, I think we'll see a hybrid of 2 or more of these technologies. The trouble with glasses is that you can't choose what to focus on, things fade in and out based on the camera focus, not your eye. Minimizing the distance of cameras when filming eliminates that blur on the edges, but also reduces the illusion of depth. Combining that with head tracking and 5-6 video channels instead of 2 creates the only life-like 3D video I've ever seen. When you've demoed good 3D packages, you quickly realize that thing like "Avatar" are poorly implemented gimmicks, and not good enough for your money. With several competitors with different technologies coming to the marketplace over the next 2-3 years, I think you'll see a new format war. Early adopters will probably get a good 5-10 years before having any incentive to change hardware, but with so many new technologies on the horizon from competing parties, I wouldn't invest too much in this.

Here's a clip about head tracking from a few years ago most of you 3D buffs have probably seen already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-...r_embedded

Now incorporate that type of technology with a better head tracking device, similar to Xbox Kinnect (project Natal). Now you get the same effect in games without any awkward headgear.

Now imagine that processing power is used for real-time rendering of an animated movie. A next-gen console should have little problem with that. Non-animated movies would have to be shot from at least 5 angles, probably necessitating an new disc media, but similar effects can be achieved using the additional perspectives and Z-Axis interpolation.

Add to that parallax display from a lenticular screen and you have something incredible. This is where we're headed. There are patents being filed by Sony, MS, and several major movie studios. Once they work that out, all hell will break loose with another format war, and the end product won't resemble 3D as we know it today.

The next major breakthrough will be in gaming, since frames are generated at variable perspectives on the fly, rather than fixed to the position of a camera when filming. Keep an Eye on Microsoft's Kinnect and nVidia's 3D vision. The technologies are very compatible, and the two companies work closely on many projects. Sony will follow suit with something very comparable, based on the Current 3DTV standard they're pushing and their Playstation. You'll see the real momentum building with the next game console release from either company. Movies will catch-up shortly after.

Sorry but not gonna happen with next gen consoles, to render something like Avatar requires a massive render farm you really think a next gen console could be this powerfull to render in real time? i cant even imagine the amount of ram it requires to render Avatar.
find quote
Post Reply