Help with testing if encoded 3D JAV plays well

[SamKook]

I was wondering if encoded 3D video can be played the same as the original so if someone with a 3D TV could help me out, I would send them different samples(so far I only have a 2 picture side-by-side 3D source) to try out to see if it play properly.

 

[CodeGeek]

I have a Philipis 3D TV. And it is connected my PC. I don't have any 3D Bluray, so I tested it with some 3D side-by-side clips from a 3D TV related website (used VideoLAN player and HDMI connection). And it worked - at least as good or bad as 3D in the cinema. Unfortunately it still doesn't have the quality of the holodeck.

So how can I help you?

 

[SamKook]

If you could let me know if these play and look correct it would be much appreciated:
Non-cropped version(displays like the original DVD): http://jumbofiles.com/byo2z4hqm0yy/DDT-349_10bit_3D_no-crop.mkv.html
Cropped version(displays like a normal rip of mine): http://jumbofiles.com/yw79mkkgncr4/DDT-349_10bit_3D_cropped.mkv.html

Make sure you use VLC v2 or higher(or at least v1.2 if you're using betas) since I used 10bit of colors.
If jumbofiles doesn't work properly for you, just let me know which host you prefer and I'll reupload them.

Thanks for the help.

 

[CodeGeek]

Okay, tested it using VLC media player 2.0.2 Twoflower and my Philipis 3D TV. The TV has a resolution of 1920 x 1080p. As it uses the odd lines for one eye and the even lines the resolution is lower in 3D.

Both clips looked correct. Only the resolution was a little bit low. I could recognize single pixels. But I guess you used 708x478 because of the file size.

The 3D effect was okay, but sometimes a little bit too strong. The gap between her clothes and her breasts was really big. Looked like you could stick a fist between it.

By the way: Couldn't see any difference between the non-cropped version and the cropped version. uzzled:

Looking forward to some complete movies. :cheer:

If you need some help again, just knock.

 

[SamKook]

Thanks, that's good to know.

It seems like there's absolutely nothing special to do to encode 3D(at least for the side by side ones).

Just to make sure it didn't mess with the 3D effect since you said it was a bit strong, here's the untouched video sample I used from the DVD to see if there's a difference: http://jumbofiles.com/rhkchbg4p2ak/DDT-349_3D_Orig.mkv.html

The difference between the cropped and non-cropped version is that I cropped 6 pixels on each sides and 2 on top to remove the black bars from the video.

I used 708x478 for the cropped version because that's the original DVD resolution(minus the cropped black bars) and it get resized to 840x478 by the player to respect the aspect ratio of 16/9. The uncropped is 720x480 and get resized to 853x480, like the original DVD.

Unless I find a BluRay source(which are really rare), that's the highest resolution I can use.

 

[CodeGeek]

Okay, also tested the original sample. No difference at all. At least I didn't realize and difference.

It's a pity that a higher resolution is not available. But as my TV only supports 1920x540 in 3D mode it shouldn't be a big issue. But I have a few 3D clips and don't see these blocks there. That's odd.

 

[SamKook]

Good to know everything looks the same, thanks for all the tests.

Your other samples are probably from a higher quality source or are of higher resolution. Most JAV studios aren't recognized for producing visually high quality DVDs.

And the picture get stretched quite a bit if you consider that it's actually only 354x478 since there's 2 next to each others which is about 12 times smaller than full HD.

Also, your TV can't display the image in 1920x540 and still keep the proper aspect ratio so it most likely interlace the video or something like that(not sure how that works though since half the lines are polarized for only one eye. Unless the TV can change the polarization at will) by cutting half of the vertical resolution of the source. I haven't managed to find detailed information about the process so I'm not 100% sure of what I just said though, but it's the most logical explanation I can think of. That means it stretches the picture from 354x239 to 1920x540 which is also about 12 times the original.