Mpeg-4 mvc (aka 3D) inside MKV [Archive]

kurkosdr

2nd December 2010, 17:35

Suppose I mux a Mpeg-4 mvc stream in an MKV file. Will it play (in 3D) on:

1) PowerDVD, ArcSoft TMT, WinDVD?

2) Standalone MKV (DivxHD) players that also have Bluray 3D support?

It's strange that no software maker or hardware manufacturer offers official support for mpeg-4 mvc inside mkv, considering how easy it should be for players that already have Bluray 3D support.
Anyway, can any of the above players "accidentaly" play a mpeg-4 mvc stream inside a MKV, thinking they are playing the stream from a bluray? Has anyone tried it? (there is no need to re-encode anything, just lift the mpeg 4 mvc stream from the m2ts file and mux it inside an mkv)

PS: I solely blame VLC/MPC-HC/Mplayer and the x264 team for the total lack of mpeg-4 mvc support for MKV, because they could have set the example for software makers like Cyberlink and hardware manufacturers, as they often do when it comes to open formats.

Inspector.Gadget

2nd December 2010, 17:58

I solely blame VLC/MPC-HC/Mplayer and the x264 team for the total lack of mpeg-4 mvc support for MKV, because they could have set the example for software makers like Cyberlink and hardware manufacturers, as they often do when it comes to open formats.

Commit a patch or stop pointing fingers.

Dark Shikari

2nd December 2010, 18:01

PS: I solely blame VLC/MPC-HC/Mplayer and the x264 team for the total lack of mpeg-4 mvc support for MKV, because they could have set the example for software makers like Cyberlink and hardware manufacturers, as they often do when it comes to open formats.I don't see your patch. Did you forget to attach it? I assume you're blaming us for not applying your patch, but if you don't attach it, I can't see how it's our fault.

The reason 3D isn't implemented in any major media players is because nobody cares about 3D except television manufacturers. Also because there's no standardized method of outputting 3D video. There's about 6 different methods out there, at least, all of them mutually contradictory; just see Youtube's "3D player" for an example of the madness.

kurkosdr

2nd December 2010, 18:21

The reason 3D isn't implemented in any major media players is because nobody cares about 3D except television manufacturers.
For now. When the new 3D TVs that don't require glasses roll out, it 'll suddenly be everywhere.
They said the same about 1080p videos. "720p is fine", "upscalers will make DVDs look as good as 1080p", "most monitors are 768p so no one really cares" etc but when panel prices dropped, 1080p videos where suddenly everywhere, and VLC started to feel old. Videolan had to rush to get DXVA and multicore support for VLC.

Also because there's no standardized method of outputting 3D video. There's about 6 different methods out there, at least, all of them mutually contradictory; just see Youtube's "3D player" for an example of the madness.
Ok, got to agree with that. But the fact there is no mvc support in x264 is somewhat strange, if we take into account that mvc is an open (as in open specs) format. Now, the only way to put an mpeg 4 mvc stream inside an MKV is to take it from an m2ts file as-is, which will result in a enormous file. It only serves as an experiment. The ability to re-encode would help 3D MKVs take over the world.

RunningSkittle

2nd December 2010, 18:23

@kurkosdr

"Patches welcome!"

NanoBot

2nd December 2010, 18:54

Blue_MiSfit

2nd December 2010, 20:27

Kurkosdr:
Please watch your tone. Blaming anyone for the lack of a feature is never a productive thing to do. If you care enough, start coding or hire someone to do it for you.

Dark Shikari

2nd December 2010, 22:12

Ok, got to agree with that. But the fact there is no mvc support in x264 is somewhat strange, if we take into account that mvc is an open (as in open specs) format. Now, the only way to put an mpeg 4 mvc stream inside an MKV is to take it from an m2ts file as-is, which will result in a enormous file. It only serves as an experiment. The ability to re-encode would help 3D MKVs take over the world.If you want to encode your own 3D content, you don't need MVC. AVC includes an SEI (frame packing) that allows signaling of 3D content.

2nd December 2010, 23:59

Just out of curiosity I would like to ask a general question about the mvc compression format. Does mvc allow to encode 3D content in a way that there are three "angles" encoded into one mvc stream, that's the 2D perspective, the difference from 2D to the left eye perspective and the difference from 2D to the right eye perspektive ?

MVC certainly allows more than two views but I don't know if this would work within the Blu-ray MVC specification or decoders designed to support that.

Lyris

5th December 2010, 23:08

For now. When the new 3D TVs that don't require glasses roll out, it 'll suddenly be everywhere.

That's not happening any time soon. I've heard figures from 5 years to a decade.

Although I agree with you with your 1080p example. At first it was "nobody needs 1080p!", but suddenly the refuseniks shut their mouths when 1080p displays became affordable!

Dark Shikari

5th December 2010, 23:17

That's not happening any time soon. I've heard figures from 5 years to a decade.

Although I agree with you with your 1080p example. At first it was "nobody needs 1080p!", but suddenly the refuseniks shut their mouths when 1080p displays became affordable!There's a difference: 1080p doesn't give me a migraine upon watching it for 5 minutes.

TheFluff

6th December 2010, 00:03

3D TV/movies are an incredibly silly gimmick that is being hyped and marketed to all hell because after the TV manufacturers managed to sell everyone flat and/or HD TV sets they needed yet another new gimmick that will require people to throw out their not very old, perfectly working equipment and buy new, slightly different equipment for twice the price instead.

Hollywood is in on it too because it's certainly easier to invent silly gimmicks that sell than it is to actually make good movies.

If you know your history you'll know they already tried this once 30 years ago or so, and it failed because it was such a silly gimmick. It's still a silly gimmick now, they've just gotten better at marketing.

kypec

6th December 2010, 12:39

DS & TheFluff - I couldn't express better my feelings about 3D movies than you wrote it! :goodpost:
I used to love going to cinema in the past -> now almost every title I'm interested in is being presented only in 3D there. WTF?! I don't want to pay higher price just for that crap! I'm perfectly fine with lower priced conventional 2D version! Hopefully I'll be able to build a comfy home-cinema system in my living room one day to get big picture and rich sound and won't be forced to watch anything in 3D anymore. Everyone has dreams...but they don't have to be 3D necessarily. :p

sneaker_ger

6th December 2010, 13:46

off topic: Isn't it possible to just wear glasses with both eyes using the same orientation? (Leaving out the higher price and discomfort of wearing these glasses.)

BigPines

16th December 2010, 17:24

If you want to encode your own 3D content, you don't need MVC. AVC includes an SEI (frame packing) that allows signaling of 3D content.
Anyone know of a tutorial somewhere or instructions that explain how to use this type of encoding? I am specifically interested in experimenting with the frame alternation method. I assume you can take two discrete video views (video files) and combine them into one file. I wonder how big the resulting file would be? I wonder what devices could recognize the flag? PS3?

Mike

Blue_MiSfit

16th December 2010, 21:11

Lyris

16th December 2010, 22:31

There's a difference: 1080p doesn't give me a migraine upon watching it for 5 minutes.

Touché, my friend.

Daiz

16th December 2010, 23:19

Hasn't MKV itself had some options for stereoscopy for quite a while, though? In the "Format specific options"-tab of mkvmerge GUI, there's a "Stereoscopy"-dropdown box with some options, but I don't think I've seen anything that would support that. But then again, I don't have any kind of 3D gear.

rica

17th December 2010, 01:44

Hard to understand why coders are so conservative, really?
Guys new system is completely different than 30 year old 3D stuff.
You don't need to have an expensive 3D TV.
When you have a look at new generation 3D, you need larger and larger screens.
And for 400-500 bucks you may get a DLP 3D Ready PJ + a pair of DLP Link glasses (100 bucks).

You will get frame sequential 3D. (720p 120)

Have fun. (ı've never had any headache btw:) )

Zerofool

17th December 2010, 19:55

I really dislike this whole 3D-hate all over the world, all that talk about "dorky glasses".
About five-six years ago, when a friend of mine showed me what Stereo-3D gaming is, I was blown away by the depth of the effect. And then again, I decided to wait for better display technologies, like high-quality ones without glasses (what most people are doing today - waiting for such better tech), it was shutter glasses + CRT monitor back then, but time passed and nothing happened and by the looks of it, such tech was very far off in the future (and it still is), so two years ago I also started playing all games in S3D, at first with anaglyph glasses and soon after that I got the same cheap combo as my friend, and since than I'm only gaming in S3D and I'm never going back to regular 3D (mono). It's just different experience, it's like you've been blind with one eye up to that point. And I don't care how I look wearing the glasses (and my huge headphones for that matter) when gaming/watching, I'm not on a fashion show or something...

The thing about 3D movies is that when it's done right, it's great. But most of the movies these days are either 2D->3D converts, or shot by people which doesn't know what they're doing (with very few exceptions, of course), or simply animated movies :). In time, cinematographers will learn to use 3D as great instrument, special effect of it's own, and then nobody will ever want to watch 2D movies again (well, there will always be 2D-only genres, but the profitable ones will be in 3D :)).

There's a difference: 1080p doesn't give me a migraine upon watching it for 5 minutes.
Everybody feels that way in the beginning (me included, for the first few days, but maybe in a lesser form), but in time they'll be able to watch 3D for hours without break. Well, at least most of them - there are some people that can't see in 3D at all (not only movies, but in real life as well), the brains of others just can't buy the illusion, and it's a torture for them to watch it. Serious eyesight issues can also hurt the experience, and it's often recommended to such people not to watch 3D. But most important is the quality of the display (in terms of crosstalk (a.k.a. stereo ghosting)), and the 3D-quality of the content you're watching, these can greatly ruin the experience, and lead to eye-strain and headaches.

So I hope all things related to MVC, stereo-format flags with different containers and so on (aside from the BluRay world) will be settled soon and encoder/decoder and player developers can concentrate on implementing support for them (if they wished to).

rica

18th December 2010, 00:59

So I hope all things related to MVC, stereo-format flags with different containers and so on (aside from the BluRay world) will be settled soon and encoder/decoder and player developers can concentrate on implementing support for them (if they wished to).

+1.
Congrats.

mariner

20th December 2010, 07:41

I believe frame alteration works like this:

View A = left eye
View B = right eye

ABABABABABABABAB etc...

So, in avisynth

lefteye=ffvideosource(...foo.avi)
righteye=ffvideosource(...bar.avi)

interleave(lefteye,righteye)

Greetings Blue_MiSfit.

1. Does one end up with frame rate getting doubled, ie 60p becomes 120p?

2. Should the --frame-packing 5 flag be used?

Many thanks and best regards.

20th December 2010, 13:12

1. Does one end up with frame rate getting doubled, ie 60p becomes 120p?

Yep.

2. Should the --frame-packing 5 flag be used?

Yes, but to actually make use of the flag, you also need a decoder and player that reads it and acts accordingly.

BigPines

20th December 2010, 13:59

Anyone know if the PS3 can take advantage of this flag? I believe it can but want to verify.

Mike

mariner

21st December 2010, 02:16

Yep.

Yes, but to actually make use of the flag, you also need a decoder and player that reads it and acts accordingly.

Thanks for the reply, nm.

1. Would you know of any system that will correctly handle 1920x1080/120p frame sequential (or is it called frame packed) 3D?

2. When I tried the script on 1920x1080/59.94p stream without specifying the frame rate, the result was reported as 119.596 fps. Is this a known issue?

Best regards.

MukiEX

21st December 2010, 09:22

When it comes down to it, there really is only one problem:

There isn't anyone around who has the coding capability to help with x264 or matroska development (mkvmerge and whatnot), who also cares about stereoscopic content.

If this person existed we'd see some preliminary patches already.

Well, I guess the other problem being that stereoscopic content (I don't like using 3D, we've been using that term for the last two decades to describe computer generated imagery with polygonal or bezier bases) hasn't picked up enough for the existing developers to find it an important enough feature to devote their resources to. That part you can probably blame on TV manufacturers.

(rant follows) As it stands, stereoscopic content is at a minimum. Current consoles either can't do it (360, Wii) or can't do it without major graphical compromises (PS3). And Cable/Satellite content is rare at best (sports programs require a replacement of every major camera in the stadium being filmed at). So the only current hope is Blu-Ray. And what does everyone do? Take what few Blu-Ray releases are coming out this year, and nab them up like a retarded game of "Hungry Hungry Hippos" to take a trickle of movies and turn them into a droplet. Right now, aside from "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs", I don't know of a single stereoscopic Blu-Ray movie that's currently available outside of a bundle with a new TELEVISION. If Sony, Sharp, Toshiba, Panasonic, and Samsung want to know why nobody's buying these televisions, all they have to do is run to Best Buy and try to buy 3 movies for them.

Anyhoo, here's hoping that most of these issues will be resolved by next summer. At least by then we'll have some polarized televisions that don't need $150 glasses to work (RealD is licensing passive screen tech for spring). That and we'll have more than a couple of films to choose from. Hopefully by then we'll have some solid inroads into MKV and X264.

BigPines

24th December 2010, 05:11

I share your frustration with the greedy hardware and software companies and you make some good points but there are several Blu-ray 3D titles available for purchase without a television:

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
A Christmas Carol
Alice in Wonderland
Despicable Me
Guardians of Ga'Hoole
Clash of the Titans
Open Season
Several Imax Films

and a bunch of horror flicks I don't care about. Check out Amazon for more: http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=amb_link_354226382_3?ie=UTF8&docId=1000492701&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=auto-sparkle&pf_rd_r=13MC93K0N4H02E3CP7N7&pf_rd_t=301&pf_rd_p=1277678002&pf_rd_i=toy%20story%203%203d

Mike

kurkosdr

2nd January 2011, 18:32

No Transformers? No Star Trek? Not even Iron Man? Who's gonna buy a 3D TV if some of the highest grossing films of 2010 aren't in 3D?

Most of the titles on the link above are cartoons, because computer generated cartoons are already in (polygonal) 3D, so releasing them into "bluray 3D" (aka bluray with mpeg4 mvc) is one export option away. But on real movies, additional cost is required for the special cameras etc. Most filmmakers think the potential benefit doesn't justify the cost.

And what did hollywood do? The took the only real movie available (Avatar), and made it an exclusive for a brand that most people don't even know it exists (Panasonic).

Anyway, the real problem isn't the lack of titles. The real problem is the fact the technology isn't ready yet. Most 3D TVs are shutter based and require glasses to work.

It's like those early "RCA color" televisions, which could only display red and green hues, and not real color. When NTSC (and YUV in general) came, which could do real color, those early adopters must have felt kinda duped. I predict that the early adopters of 3D are going to feel the same way when the real 3D televisions roll out.

"Buy a 3D player know, get a 3D television later" seems to be a good advice.

However, I still believe that the ability to *encode* 3D stuff in MKV must be implemented/standardised, so that every "bluray 3D" player will be able to play stereoscopic MKV.

madshi

4th January 2011, 21:10

FWIW, the MKV standard was recently (just a couple of weeks/months ago) polished for better 3D support. So MKV itself should be ready for 3D. We'd need to support from splitters and a decoder, obviously. CoreCodec has just announced today that they'll show an MVC decoder at CES this year. So they'll deliver the decoder. Maybe they'll also deliver a splitter for m2ts and mkv, we'll have to wait and see. Of course we'll then still need a renderer which can handle 3D, but that should not be such a big problem, I've that already on my to do list for madVR.

arttext

11th March 2011, 13:24

Iz3d (http://www.iz3d.com/mpc) claim to have a(n) (apparently) modified MPC 3D player that can play, together with their 3d driver, play all sorts of stereoscopic content. I haven't checked it out, since my anaglyph glasses were ordered but not delivered yet. I don't expect much out of it, seriously, but love to try new gimmicks, especially when the price of doing so is next to nothing :D. I will report back here.

BlackSharkfr

11th March 2011, 16:59

I have been using iZ3D's modified MPC for over 2 years. It's my default video player. I does not have all the modern features of the latest MPC-HC but it does all I need.
You can grab it from this page http://www.iz3d.com/3dsoftware

It reads Side-by-side, Over/Under and interlaced Stereo video files. (roughly all my files) It does not read frame sequential or MVC though.
Also iZ3D removed most codecs from the player, they said they didn't know if they were safe from patent claims if they let them in, so you'll have to rely on DirectShow codecs.

Set your type of 3D display in the options, it supports Anaglyph Red/Cyan, Anaglyph Red/Cyan with Dubois transform optimisation, iZ3D's own display and dual-projectors.
When you open a file you have to specify it's 3D in the file menu. iZ3D's MPC will remember the file format for each file you use.
I haven't tried the "brand new" version they just released, but I tried a beta version of it almost a year ago, they added support for interlaced displays such as Zalman Displays, LG/Vizio FPR 3DTVs and they made an attempt to do 2D to 3D conversion (which i didn't find convincing at all at that time)

iZ3D says the next version of the player will use their API to support all the 3D displays their current gaming driver supports (hdmi 1.4 3DTVs through AMD HD3D, generic 120Hz output, stereo-mirror, etc...)

EDIT :
Just tried their new version, it works very nicely with my Zalman display but it introduced quite a few very annoying bugs. (it not longer remembers the 3D settings on a file basis : it keeps using the last setting you were using the last time you used it, some features seem to be broken, more than were already broken before)

arttext

11th March 2011, 18:03

BlackSharkfr

11th March 2011, 19:57

Thank you for the supportive answer. You have to, however, forgive me my ignorance, since I'm in unchartered waters here, but is was my impression that, on a 2d screen, I could play a half-sbs (for example) and choose for the output anaglyph and then watch it. It sounded too good to be true, so maybe it is.....

You can do this, no problem. It's actually one of the primary features of this software.

In the options, set stereo rendering as Anaglyph (or Anaglyph optimized), requires player restart if you had to change it.
Once you open your Side-by-side half file, go to file menu > stereo format and choose "Side by Side"

iZ3D MPC automatically applies an Aspect-ratio correction to stretch the half-resolution image.
If you've got a Side by Side full resolution file, you'll have to manually use the aspect ratio feature to prevent iZ3D MPC from stretching it.

arttext

11th March 2011, 20:10

Excellent! Thank you. And now I only have to wait for my spectacles! :);)

arttext

14th March 2011, 13:16

I did everything you said. Still iz3D shows two images (not stretched) side by side. Renderer set to either "anaglyph" or "optimized anaglyph". File set to "side by side". Haali renderer. When I test with the driver settings I get a perfect anaglyph picture, so that is not the problem. Is it possible that the "normal" version of MPC-HC, that I also have installed, gets in the way?

BlackSharkfr

15th March 2011, 02:08

I don't think it supports Haali's renderer.
Try EVR custom or VMR 7 or 9 renderless

arttext

15th March 2011, 12:48

I don't think it supports Haali's renderer.
Try EVR custom or VMR 7 or 9 renderless

That worked! (VMR9) Thank you :). Another thing though; Altough I loaded the identically named subtitle file (.srt) the subs don't show up on the screen. Any suggestions for that?

BlackSharkfr

15th March 2011, 16:55

Yes there seems to be a bug with subtitles, they aren't displayed at all on my side either.
To circumvent, the issue if you are using FFDshow you can load the subtitles in FFDshow and use the stereoscopic option (it clones the subtitles horizontally : it works great if you have side by side files and/or use the avisynth filter to transfor your file into side by side on the fly on playback)
However it still has a little positioning bug if your file has BluRay's native bitmap based subs. I don't have any subs with SRTs files at the moment but I read they work.

arttext

18th March 2011, 13:07

BlackSharkfr

18th March 2011, 19:10

Many many years ago, Stereoscopic 3D was a small niche market that didn't bring much money. Hardware manufacturers had to make sure stuff would be compatible, and Nvidia was the god that made the software to support everything for free.

That was the old times.
Nowadays, the market is exploding and manufacturers have taken radical decisions to try and take over the market and make sure they get every possible dollar from your pocket before the others.

To make an express summary :
You need to buy a 3D ready display (120Hz+ TVs are not 3D ready, they only have 60Hz input with frame interpolation to reach 120/200/600Hz)
You need to buy the 3D glasses from the same manufacturer (There are some so called "universal" 3D glasses, but they are expensive, and they only work with some displays, not all of them)
Most TV manufacturers provide the absolute minimum compatibility : hdmi 1.4 formats, which require hdmi1.4 compatible 3D Blu Ray players, hdmi 1.4 graphics cards, hdmi 1.4 enabled drivers (Nvidia makes you pay 40$ for it !!! AMD's one is free but does not have all the features and reputation of Nvidia's)
There are 3D formats that work perfectly with any source or graphics card, 3DTVs easily support them but TV manufacturers make it as hard as they can to use them or sometimes even make them buggy, or worse : block them (Sony)
If you want an acceptable new 3D display (I consider all of them flawed at the moment, so I mean the least worse), get a Samsung 3D Plasma : LCDs have too much crosstalk (all brands), Panasonic's Plasmas are overpriced and Samsung provides compatibility mode with almost all the "old" formats that work with anything.
Nvidia is no longer the friend of the 3D enthusiast : they sell their proprietary product (Nvidia 3D Vision) that only works with their partner's certified displays and which main goal is not to provide you with 3D (that's only a secondary goal) but actually is to provide it's customers something AMD can't do so that when they upgrade their GPUs they'll be more attracted by the "green side" (they apply the exact same strategy as with CUDA and Physix). You may accept this or not, their product might suit you (because it _is_ excellent). But you just need to remember what you're stepping into if you were to buy it.

arttext

18th March 2011, 19:19

Thanks for this excellent overview. My conclusion: FTTB I'll stick with 2D (I love my Panasonic screen) and an occasional fun anaglyph. :D

rica

22nd March 2011, 00:57

Ok, I'm gonna push this one step further. I've searched for answers to this one but couldn't find a complete one.

Many, many years ago I had a video card and active glasses for 3d gaming. Worked on a CRT monitor.

Now I use my 42" Panasonic Viera plasma screen as monitor for my htpc.
Say: I buy a video 3d capable video card (nVidia?) and active shutter glasses.

Would that work on my Panasonic plasma because of the needed high refresh rate > 120hz etc. (nobody at Panasonic could give me that info) I read somewhere that plasma screens could do that.
Will I be able, given the right software player, to watch different format 3d movies then (I already can do anaglyph :) )

Hi, i have a Panny Viera TX-P42GT20E 3D Ready TV. (***25E in US)
1) Yes it's gonna work but all real 3D TVs work at 24Hz for 3D.
I use original Panyy glasses but i have two pairs of Xpan-X103 universal glasses which work very well for my Panny.
2) For 3D BDs, you gonna need any of those commercial players+AnyDVDHD: TMT5, PDVD10, WinDVD10. (for PDVD, you don't need AnyDVD btw.)
For files or games, you will need Stereoscopic Player.
Stereoscopic Player can play your anaglyph DVDs or files too.
But better is to convert them to SBS 3D videos on which i want to start a topic to share my experience.
BTW for files:
with nVidia card, you will need nVidia 3D TV Play activation key (40 bucks)
with Ati card, you won't need any additional commercial stuff.
But even i don't play games, afaik, you gonna need nVidia 3D TV Play (for nVidia) or iz3D (for Ati) if you wanna play games.

PS: blacksharkfr, as for subtitles, pls have a look at "Any free MVC encoder yet?" topic. FFDshow does the job. Thx nm one more time btw.