Storage for 3D Video Workflows

with 2 comments

Colin (who has written some excellent posts on our blog) brought up an interesting question in the comments of my NAB report regarding storage requirements for 3D workflows. I found my response growing to blog post proportions, so here it is….

3D (stereoscopic) video does not always double the capture data for a couple of reasons, most notably because there are different capture methods, different post-production methods for processing the data, and different ways to project the data, all which can affect the data requirements at different points in the production, post-production, or delivery process.

Data requirements will be double at worst because there are (sometimes) two stereo video tracks, but since the cameras are capturing very similar information, one of the accepted standards for delivery is 2D+Delta compression for the MPEG format. Using this compression the image data is processed with an algorithm that removes redundant pixel data from the two video tracks. The amount of data is equal to one image plus whatever is different in the other image (the Delta). Using this compression, 3D video is usually roughly 40% larger than a single stream of HD video.

Some cameras, like Pace’s Fusion camera (above) which James Cameron used for Avatar, do shoot with two cameras side-by side, thus creating stereo video tracks and double the data for post (plus metadata). In this workflow, the two tracks are used to focus differently on objects in 3D space, dynamically changing the space between the cameras, and effectively using different z-depth focus to achieve the effect. This actually is not a new methodology, but using software algorithms to help determine focal length and automating what previously was manual can bring faster and more repeatable results. Another company, 3ality, is also providing similar functionality with different toolsets, including hardware that retrofits into 2D workflows. Interestingly enough, one of the major differences between them as 3D forerunners is that Pace is only a rentable technology solution, and 3ality cameras can be purchased. Two different positions.

When post is complete, there are some tricks that can be employed to reduce data for delivery including the 2D+Delta for transmission. For viewing the 3D data, there are a few different methods all which require different hardware (projectors, screens and potentially different methods of decoding).  Instead of using two projectors, some 3D can be projected using interleaved frames at a higher frequency through a polarized filter, i.e. one frame for the left eye, followed by one for the right. This is employed by RealD 3D and has by far the widest adoption in US theaters. Further, some theaters are equipped with active glasses technology, meaning that the glasses themselves ‘shutter’ either mechanically or using an LCD shutter linked wirelessly to the projection system for timing. I have heard these glasses are bulkier and heavier but better for certain situations.

3D workflow is particularly interesting to Control Group as an opportunity to help our clients design lean, optimized pipelines. This will impact our data stores, but why double data if it can be avoided? I think this is an opportunity for integrators like us to help productions, as well as the post-house, in evaluating these technologies and coming up with an appropriate blend of supporting technologies and workflows. Our goal is to build workflows that suit the business model and subject matter, as well as figure out how data is managed, archived, and stored. This is not the time to spend unnecessarily, but it is time to consider when and how this will affect our clients, and help them begin readiness preparations. We want to help our clients avoid turning down work because they haven’t put thought into these issues.

In conclusion, there are a variety of methods that a broadcaster or strategic consultant can invoke – some new, some old – to solve the technical issues. I think a lot of real challenges lie in the production of 3D content, such as the creative process of capturing a scene and the framing of the shots to take advantage of the magic of 3D. These are new processes and they involve re-educating producers, directors, cinematographers, camera operators, actors, and production designers.

The technology? No problem. ;)

Share this: Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter Share this with Linked in

Written by Scott Anderson

April 29th, 2010 at 1:53 pm

2 Responses to 'Storage for 3D Video Workflows'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Storage for 3D Video Workflows'.

  1. I thought I had heard of a delta type of scheme for storing and transferring 3D images but when I researched any transmission systems that would employ this for having 2D compatibility for sets/viewers without the proper decoding equipment, I found nothing. Is anyone aware of any group that is researching this type of delivery method to the home? It would make for a great transition to 3D technology while allowing broadcasters to deliver 3D content over existing channels without disrupting viewers with only 2D capability, thus not making it necessary to have dedicated channels like we are now pursuing.

    Greg Larvenz

    1 May 10 at 11:08 am

  2. Hi Greg!
    I think you hit the nail on the head, when you talked about the technology in transition.
    there is a battle being waged regarding frame compatible vs. 2D plus Delta for the winning transitional stream. there are sacrifices to be made, whether its resolution (like in frame-compatible to squeeze it in the same size stream as HD) or whether its distributing new set top boxes, or new encoders.
    I think new channels are going to have to be the transition path, but it is driven from the consumer side, because of the monetary opportunity, as well as equipment-related issues. as for the decoding required for 2D+Delta, it will probably require either the latest set-top box, or a firmware upgrade at the least, but i believe the same stream can be transmitted to old decoders as 2D, but will definitely require some new encoding toolsets, at the head-end.
    I think it will be a similar upgrade path as HD was, with MSO’s providing the path by trading in the set-top for access to 3D service. I think this has to be service-based (and separate channel based) during the transition. Plus it is a perfect opportunity for MSO’s to upcharge based on new service offerings. i think the MSO bandwidth will be squeezed during this transition (carrying extra, separate 3D channels) but hopefully with switched digital video initiatives, and the demand for unicast or “on demand” content, the overall multicast bandwidth can be reduced to allow for these new separate channels.
    thanks for tuning in!

    scott anderson

    4 May 10 at 9:59 am

Leave a Reply

services people careers press blog contact follow us