The present disclosure relates to transmission of three-dimensional (3D) video streams on legacy transport infrastructures for transmitting two-dimensional (2D) high-definition video streams.
The new High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) standards (versions 1.4 and 1.4a), defining an interface for transmission of decoded programs to final player equipment, provide for transfer of full-resolution high-definition 3D video streams, i.e. transfer of two stereoscopic full-resolution HD views, which doubles the transmission pass band. This pass band is not available on current transport infrastructures (satellite, DTTV, cable).
Pending a transport infrastructure dedicated to 3D programs, the interested parties and normalization committees (DVB, HDMI, MPEG) are working on approaches enabling 3D video to be transmitted on existing transport infrastructures. The progress is published on the Websites of these committees. It is sought to insert two views in place of each image in the transported stream and, by way of minor modifications to the reception equipment, to reconstruct the two views in a format compatible with the HDMI standard. As existing transport infrastructures are not designed for this, the resolution of the views may have to be downgraded.
Among the different transport formats that have been reviewed, two generic candidates have been identified: Top-and-Bottom (TaB) and Side-by-Side (SbS). Each of these generic formats can be combined with an existing 2D high definition (HD) format of the progressive type, i.e. the 50 Hz and 60 Hz variants of the 720p format and the 1080p format at 24 Hz. Only the SbS generic format is combined with the 50 and 60 Hz variants of the 1080i interlaced format.
The complementary matrices of
The complementary matrices of
The matrices of
There appears to be no consensus on the choice of decimation matrices. The CableLabs consortium is the first to propose a choice in the document OpenCable Specifications, Content Encoding Profiles 3.0 Specification, C-SP-CEP3.0-I01-100827, section 10.2, sub-paragraph #6, published on their Website on Aug. 27, 2010. It proposes using the same matrix for all the images, more precisely one of the matrices of
An approach is disclosed whereby the spatial resolution of the stereoscopic views transported on a legacy infrastructure can be enhanced.
A method is provided for transmitting two consecutive pairs of images and may comprise decimating each image with a ratio of 2, assembling the two decimated images of each pair in a composite image, transmitting the composite images, and reconstructing complete images from the composite images. In decimation, the information removed from the images of the first pair are kept in the images of the second pair, from the spatial point of view, and the complete images are reconstructed by de-interlacing processing from the composite images.
According to one embodiment, the information removed by decimation from the first image of a pair is kept, from the spatial point of view, in the second image of the pair.
According to one embodiment, decimation removes the lines of a first parity in the first image of a first of the two pairs, the lines of a second parity in the second image of the first pair, the lines of second parity in the first image of the second pair, and the lines of first parity in the second image of the second pair.
Other advantages and features will become more clearly apparent from the following description of particular embodiments of the present disclosure given for non-restrictive example purposes only and represented in the appended drawings, in which:
In order to increase the spatial resolution of images that have been decimated, in particular, to transport the latter on a legacy infrastructure, it is disclosed to use de-interlacing techniques rather than spatial interpolation techniques. De-interlacing techniques do in fact enable spatial information to be retrieved, from two consecutive frames, on account of the fact that the missing lines in one frame are found in the following frame with a temporal offset.
For this purpose, consecutive composite images, even if they originate from decimation of progressive images, are made to conform to an interlaced video stream.
The second frame (on the left), constructed by decimation of a second pair of stereoscopic views, includes the lines that are missing, from the spatial point of view, from the first frame. In other words, the top half of the frame includes the even lines (suffix “0”) of the second left view L. The bottom half of the frame includes the odd lines (suffix “1”) of the second right view R.
For streams formatted according to
The de-interlacing principles can also apply if quincunx decimation matrices are used (
Frames 10′, represented according to the format of
De-interlacing circuit 18 is typically intended to process frames of 540 lines at the most, to produce progressive images of 1080 lines at the refresh frequency rate, here 60 Hz. To process frames according to
This approach, with the frame formats of
To process frames according to the formats of
The formats of
To process frames where decimation has been performed using the quincunx matrices of
Among the formats of
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
10 03788 | Sep 2010 | FR | national |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4658291 | Morishita | Apr 1987 | A |
5142357 | Lipton | Aug 1992 | A |
6427026 | Hein | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6765568 | Swift et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
7505013 | Love | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7580463 | Routhier et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
8427469 | Suh | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8533166 | Sulieman et al. | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8891010 | Woodall | Nov 2014 | B1 |
20020008907 | Yamamoto | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020021832 | Dawson | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020126396 | Dolgoff | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20030128273 | Matsui et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030223499 | Routhier et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20050117637 | Routhier et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20060012676 | Tomita | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060153289 | Choi et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060250503 | Crutchfield, Jr. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060263758 | Crutchfield, Jr. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070153380 | Shestak | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070165305 | Mehrle | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20080165275 | Jones et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080303895 | Akka et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090128620 | Lipton et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090136083 | Picard et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090252370 | Picard et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100053305 | Guillou | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100066817 | Zomet | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100111195 | Fortin | May 2010 | A1 |
20100135379 | Fortin et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100177161 | Curtis et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100225645 | Suh | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20110069225 | Routhier et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110080466 | Kask | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110102554 | Saito | May 2011 | A1 |
20110134214 | Chen | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110149026 | Luthra | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110157331 | Jang | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110164110 | Fortin | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20120013651 | Trayner | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120026288 | Tourapis et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1168053 | Dec 1997 | CN |
102415100 | Apr 2012 | CN |
Entry |
---|
CableLabs, “OpenCable Specification-Content Encoding Profiles 3.0 Specification”, Dec. 2012, pp. 1-32 See Priority U.S. Appl. No. 13/825,192, filed Mar. 20, 2013. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20160088283 A1 | Mar 2016 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13825192 | US | |
Child | 14953907 | US |